https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192665 Food Adulteration prosecution was sustained where the sample-taking officer's appointment as Food Inspector was proved and his authority was not effectively challenged. Alleged defects in notice, sample quantity, witness attestation, and seal comparison were treated as minor irregularities because the statutory safeguards were substantially complied with and no prejudice was shown. Written consent for prosecution was also upheld as sufficient in substance, even if inartfully drafted, because the competent authority had granted consent and the statute did not require exact formulation of the offence. On that basis, the conviction for selling adulterated coriander was maintained and the revision failed. en-us Tue, 13 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jun 2017 18:42:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192665 Food Adulteration prosecution was sustained where the sample-taking officer's appointment as Food Inspector was proved and his authority was not effectively challenged. Alleged defects in notice, sample quantity, witness attestation, and seal comparison were treated as minor irregularities because the statutory safeguards were substantially complied with and no prejudice was shown. Written consent for prosecution was also upheld as sufficient in substance, even if inartfully drafted, because the competent authority had granted consent and the statute did not require exact formulation of the offence. On that basis, the conviction for selling adulterated coriander was maintained and the revision failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192665