https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278843 Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Delhi HC treated impleadment of the manufacturer as a discretionary measure aimed at avoiding conflicting findings, not as a condition precedent to a valid prosecution; non-impleadment therefore did not vitiate the trial or require remand, especially where a separate prosecution against the manufacturer already existed. The Court also accepted the accused's statutory defence by holding that purchase from a duly licensed manufacturer and sale of the goods in original packing were sufficiently proved. On that factual basis, the acquittal was sustained and the accused retained the benefit of the statutory defence. en-us Fri, 20 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:34:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278843 Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Delhi HC treated impleadment of the manufacturer as a discretionary measure aimed at avoiding conflicting findings, not as a condition precedent to a valid prosecution; non-impleadment therefore did not vitiate the trial or require remand, especially where a separate prosecution against the manufacturer already existed. The Court also accepted the accused's statutory defence by holding that purchase from a duly licensed manufacturer and sale of the goods in original packing were sufficiently proved. On that factual basis, the acquittal was sustained and the accused retained the benefit of the statutory defence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278843