https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309578 A prohibited coal-tar dye in food was treated as adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act because Rules 23 and 28 banned its use altogether; to avoid an absurd result, the Court read the word "and" in Section 2(i)(j) disjunctively as "or", and the conviction under Sections 7 and 16(1)(a)(i) was sustainable. On sentence, the Court found the case fit for probation despite the statutory minimum, considering the accused's age, the limited nature of the offence, and the special circumstances, so the conviction was not disturbed on merits but the custodial sentence was replaced by release on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. en-us Wed, 25 Jun 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Sep 2023 16:10:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309578 A prohibited coal-tar dye in food was treated as adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act because Rules 23 and 28 banned its use altogether; to avoid an absurd result, the Court read the word "and" in Section 2(i)(j) disjunctively as "or", and the conviction under Sections 7 and 16(1)(a)(i) was sustainable. On sentence, the Court found the case fit for probation despite the statutory minimum, considering the accused's age, the limited nature of the offence, and the special circumstances, so the conviction was not disturbed on merits but the custodial sentence was replaced by release on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Jun 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309578