https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188166 Sale of khurasani oil mixed with groundnut oil was held to be adulteration under section 2(i)(a) because a food article sold as one commodity but containing a substantial admixture of another does not answer the description of the product it purports to be. The statutory definition was construed broadly to advance the public health purpose of food law, and the conviction was upheld. The proviso to section 16(1) was held to operate only within its express limits and could not be used to reduce the mandatory minimum sentence on equitable grounds. The High Court's sentence was therefore affirmed. en-us Mon, 19 Jul 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Dec 2017 11:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188166 Sale of khurasani oil mixed with groundnut oil was held to be adulteration under section 2(i)(a) because a food article sold as one commodity but containing a substantial admixture of another does not answer the description of the product it purports to be. The statutory definition was construed broadly to advance the public health purpose of food law, and the conviction was upheld. The proviso to section 16(1) was held to operate only within its express limits and could not be used to reduce the mandatory minimum sentence on equitable grounds. The High Court's sentence was therefore affirmed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Jul 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188166