TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes prosecution in Case No. ST 2412/1999 due to invalid proceedings</h1> <h3>Hindustan Lever Ltd. Versus Food Inspector and Ors.</h3> The appeal was successful as the Court determined that the prosecution proceedings were invalid. The article in question was classified as proprietary ... - Issues:1. Appeal against the judgment of the Kerala High Court rejecting petitions for quashing proceedings in ST No. 2412 of 1999.2. Interpretation of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules.3. Determining whether the article in question falls under the category of proprietary food.4. Validity of prosecution proceedings based on the standards prescribed for skimmed milk powder.Analysis:1. The appellant filed an appeal against the Kerala High Court's judgment rejecting petitions to quash proceedings in ST No. 2412 of 1999. The proceedings were initiated based on a complaint by the Food Inspector under various sections of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and Rules. Samples were collected from a grocery shop, and after analysis, the sample was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the standard for skimmed milk powder.2. The appellant argued that the article in question was an instant dairy whitener, not fully skimmed milk powder, and therefore should not be required to conform to the standards for skimmed milk powder. Reference was made to Rule 37-A(2)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, which defines proprietary food as food not standardized under the Rules. The Court noted that prosecution based on standards for one type of food when dealing with another not standardized type would not be sustainable.3. The Court considered the definition of proprietary food under Rule 37-A(2)(b) and found that the article in question fell under this category. The respondents argued that approval from the Government of India was required, but the Court disagreed, stating that such approval applies only to specific types of articles not relevant in this case. Therefore, the prosecution proceedings were deemed invalid as the article did not fall under the standards prescribed for skimmed milk powder.4. The Court concluded that the prosecution proceedings were not valid based on the documents and facts presented. It was determined that the article in question was an instant dairy whitener falling under proprietary food, and as such, continuing the prosecution would not be legally maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the proceedings in Case No. ST No. 2412 of 1999 were quashed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
