[Ordinance VII Of 1960]
Sample must be taken in the presence of mashers and if practical in the presence of the owner of articles, and must be sealed in their presence. (DB) PLD 1967 Kar. 277. Addl. A.G. v. Rajab etc.
Milk sample supplied to the Public Analyst should not be less than 8 ounces. When specified quantity not sent, report was not relied on. PLJ 1976 Lah. 509. Ghulam Muhammad. PLD 1976 Lah. 720.
Milk samples sent for analysis after 13 days and witnesses in whose presence samples were taken not produced. No evidence to show that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the milk was of sub-standard quality, Revision accepted. PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Lah.) 353. Muhammad Ishaq.
Sample not taken before respectable witnesses. Section 23 (1) (a) read with Pure Food Rules, 1965, rule 39, held, mandatory in character. Sample of milk not taken in presence of two respectables as required by rule 39. Conviction set aside. 1977 P.Cr.LJ 81 Sikandar.
Recovery memo not attested in a case under Pure Food Ordinance. Held, recovery of alleged foodstuff not proved. 1977 P.Cr.LJ 164. Ijaz Ahmed.
Complaint u/Ss. 23 and 32 of Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 lodged by magistrate instead of Health Officer or notified inspector, Held, trial Court was not competent to take cognizance. Petitioners acquitted. PLJ 1991 Cr. C. (Lah.) 350 Muhammad Akram etc.
Raid under Pure Food Ordinance (VII of 1960) could be carried out only by food inspector. Raid conducted by local police and magistrate. Held, case registered on the basis of unauthorised raids would be coram non justice. NLR 1990 Cr. 488. Dildar Muhammad v. Hafiz Sher Ali etc.
Moisture content not to exceed 12% in wheat flour as provided in West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance VII of 1960. PLD 1997 Pesh. 143 Pakistan Flour Mills Assn. v. Govt. of NWFP. (DB).