FOOD ADULTERATION ACT -The complaint was filed under Section 2(ia)(h) of the Act read with Rule 44AAA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, the Rules). The sample of black pepper was collected for analysis purpose by paying its cost as per Section 10(3) of the Act from a Hotel - the black pepper in its form is primary food, the collection of sample of which is prohibited by the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Act.---2015 A.P.(12/2014) MSK LAW REPORTS 15

The complaint was filed under Section 2(ia)(h) of the Act read with Rule 44AAA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, the Rules). The sample of black pepper was collected for analysis purpose by paying its cost as per Section 10(3) of the Act, but the remaining stock was not seized.-Public Analyst, who submitted his report on 07.10.2004 opining that the sample contained the mineral oil which is injurious to health, and it was, therefore, adulterated. -In the instant case there is no allegation that the black pepper is used for the sale of an article of food manufactured therefrom without a licence or it is prohibited by the food authority or the food stored is in contravention of any other provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. If the black pepper is used in the preparation of food items meant for prospective customers and that food item is prohibited or stored without licence then only the prohibition contained in Section 7 of the Act is applicable. In any event, it is not the case of the respondent that Section 7 of the Act is violated.-the black pepper in its form is primary food, the collection of sample of which is prohibited by the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Act. Apart from that, a reading of the provisions of the Act discloses that the Act is intended for prevention of sale of adulterated food, but no offence can be launched against the purchaser, who purchased such article of food.-In view of the above, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed, and the same is, accordingly, allowed quashing the proceedings -2015 A.P.(12/2014) MSK LAW REPORTS 15

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)