https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275533 Liability under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the article sold was food intended for human consumption. Although ordinary mens rea is not required, the article's nature and intended use remain material where genuine doubt exists. Vague and unreliable independent-witness evidence did not adequately corroborate the Food Inspector, and the record did not establish that black til seeds were ordinarily used as food. The explanation that the seeds were kept for pooja raised reasonable doubt, while non-compliance with evidentiary safeguards further weakened the prosecution. The accused received the benefit of doubt and the conviction could not stand. en-us Mon, 18 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Oct 2018 12:42:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275533 Liability under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the article sold was food intended for human consumption. Although ordinary mens rea is not required, the article's nature and intended use remain material where genuine doubt exists. Vague and unreliable independent-witness evidence did not adequately corroborate the Food Inspector, and the record did not establish that black til seeds were ordinarily used as food. The explanation that the seeds were kept for pooja raised reasonable doubt, while non-compliance with evidentiary safeguards further weakened the prosecution. The accused received the benefit of doubt and the conviction could not stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275533