https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303399 A misbranding prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was said to fail because the supporting cash memo described only "biscuits" and did not identify the brand name, leaving the factual foundation for the allegation incomplete. The text also notes that sanction for prosecution was granted only against one accused, with no sanction for the others. On that reasoning, the complaint did not disclose a sufficient basis for cognizance or issuance of process against all accused persons, and proceedings were quashed. en-us Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jul 2022 14:48:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303399 A misbranding prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was said to fail because the supporting cash memo described only "biscuits" and did not identify the brand name, leaving the factual foundation for the allegation incomplete. The text also notes that sanction for prosecution was granted only against one accused, with no sanction for the others. On that reasoning, the complaint did not disclose a sufficient basis for cognizance or issuance of process against all accused persons, and proceedings were quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303399