https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173319 The Supreme Court upheld the respondent's conviction for selling adulterated ghee under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning that vendors meeting minimum standards for any area should be acquitted, emphasizing the validity of expert-set standards. The Court also rejected the application of Article 14, highlighting the rational basis for classification and standards. Criticizing a previous ruling, the Court stressed adherence to established rules and reduced the respondent's sentence to time served, maintaining the fine imposed. The appeal was allowed, restoring the conviction while emphasizing the importance of scientific standards and burden of proof. en-us Thu, 06 Feb 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Sep 2015 11:57:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173319 The Supreme Court upheld the respondent's conviction for selling adulterated ghee under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning that vendors meeting minimum standards for any area should be acquitted, emphasizing the validity of expert-set standards. The Court also rejected the application of Article 14, highlighting the rational basis for classification and standards. Criticizing a previous ruling, the Court stressed adherence to established rules and reduced the respondent's sentence to time served, maintaining the fine imposed. The appeal was allowed, restoring the conviction while emphasizing the importance of scientific standards and burden of proof. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Feb 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173319