<?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>1968 (11) TMI 116 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309570</link>
    <description>The notification appointing a Public Analyst was construed in the statutory context of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and the expression &quot;Medical Officer and the Chemist&quot; was treated as referring to two distinct offices, so that &quot;and&quot; could be read as &quot;or&quot; to give effect to the State&#039;s intended scheme. On that construction, the chemist attached to the laboratory was a validly appointed Public Analyst, the challenge to the analyst&#039;s competence failed, and the report remained admissible in evidence. The acquittal based on invalid appointment was therefore erroneous, and the conviction and sentence were restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2023 14:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=725635" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (11) TMI 116 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309570</link>
      <description>The notification appointing a Public Analyst was construed in the statutory context of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and the expression &quot;Medical Officer and the Chemist&quot; was treated as referring to two distinct offices, so that &quot;and&quot; could be read as &quot;or&quot; to give effect to the State&#039;s intended scheme. On that construction, the chemist attached to the laboratory was a validly appointed Public Analyst, the challenge to the analyst&#039;s competence failed, and the report remained admissible in evidence. The acquittal based on invalid appointment was therefore erroneous, and the conviction and sentence were restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>