<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1952 (12) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280290</link>
    <description>Food sold as an article represented of a particular quality is adulterated where its substance contains foreign fat, falls below the represented nature or quality, or is otherwise prejudicial to the purchaser, and the conviction was sustained on that basis. Repeal of the municipal statute during the pending prosecution did not terminate the case, because the saving provision preserved the proceedings and no retrial was required; the conviction was only aligned with the corresponding provisions of the earlier enactment. The accused could not invoke the statutory provisos without proving the facts that attracted them, so the claimed protection failed. The appeal therefore failed on the merits and the sentence remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:38:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=568822" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1952 (12) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280290</link>
      <description>Food sold as an article represented of a particular quality is adulterated where its substance contains foreign fat, falls below the represented nature or quality, or is otherwise prejudicial to the purchaser, and the conviction was sustained on that basis. Repeal of the municipal statute during the pending prosecution did not terminate the case, because the saving provision preserved the proceedings and no retrial was required; the conviction was only aligned with the corresponding provisions of the earlier enactment. The accused could not invoke the statutory provisos without proving the facts that attracted them, so the claimed protection failed. The appeal therefore failed on the merits and the sentence remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280290</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>