https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276250 Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was interpreted to require the memorandum and specimen seal to be kept separate from the sample packet, not necessarily sent at different times or by different messengers, so compliance was found where they were enclosed in separate covers. A shortfall in the quantity sent for analysis did not vitiate the prosecution because Rule 22 calls for approximate quantity and substantial compliance is sufficient if the sample can be properly analysed. On the merits, the commodity was treated as milk ice, the analyst found excess milk fat, and the sample was held to be adulterated food, leading to conviction. en-us Wed, 27 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Nov 2018 14:11:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276250 Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was interpreted to require the memorandum and specimen seal to be kept separate from the sample packet, not necessarily sent at different times or by different messengers, so compliance was found where they were enclosed in separate covers. A shortfall in the quantity sent for analysis did not vitiate the prosecution because Rule 22 calls for approximate quantity and substantial compliance is sufficient if the sample can be properly analysed. On the merits, the commodity was treated as milk ice, the analyst found excess milk fat, and the sample was held to be adulterated food, leading to conviction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276250