KISHAN CHAND versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ANR.

KISHAN CHAND versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ANR.

Chocolate ice-cream, as per Rule 61 and Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, may contain permitted stabilisers and emulsifiers up to 0.5% by weight, and prohibition is restricted to milk and cream. Prosecution did not prove that ingredient objected to was in excess of prescribed limit or...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Kishan Chand; Respondent: Delhi Administration; Respondent: R. N. Sachthey; Respondent: Avtar Singh; Complainant: Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 February 1979
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction reversed; appellant acquitted
Legal Topics
Food Adulteration, Interpretation of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules, Permitted Stabilisers and Emulsifiers in Food Products
Criminal Law Food Safety Food Adulteration Interpretation of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules Permitted Stabilisers and Emulsifiers in Food Products

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kishan Chand

Appellant

Delhi Administration

Respondent

R. N. Sachthey

Respondent

Avtar Singh

Respondent

Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the chocolate ice-cream sample was adulterated within the meaning of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules
  2. 2 Does the prohibition in Rule 61 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 apply to ice-cream and chocolate ice-cream

Ratio Decidendi

Chocolate ice-cream, as per Rule 61 and Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, may contain permitted stabilisers and emulsifiers up to 0.5% by weight, and prohibition is restricted to milk and cream. Prosecution did not prove that ingredient objected to was in excess of prescribed limit or unpermitted; conviction unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction reversed; appellant acquitted

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court insofar as it relates to the appellant is reversed
  • Conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court are set aside