https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171483 A casual or passing statement in an earlier Supreme Court decision does not become binding precedent under Article 141, especially when it merely supports the reasoning or relates to specific facts. The article explains that extracting one sentence out of context to defend a food adulteration acquittal is impermissible, because the earlier case did not lay down a rule that minor deficiencies in milk constituents necessarily require acquittal. It also notes that interference under Article 136 is unwarranted where no substantial question of public importance arises and the cited statement is not the ratio decidendi. en-us Wed, 12 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 12:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171483 A casual or passing statement in an earlier Supreme Court decision does not become binding precedent under Article 141, especially when it merely supports the reasoning or relates to specific facts. The article explains that extracting one sentence out of context to defend a food adulteration acquittal is impermissible, because the earlier case did not lay down a rule that minor deficiencies in milk constituents necessarily require acquittal. It also notes that interference under Article 136 is unwarranted where no substantial question of public importance arises and the cited statement is not the ratio decidendi. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171483