Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Tulsiram vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 October, 1984

Hyderabad Beverages Private Limited ... vs State Of A.P. on 18 April, 2006

In Tulsiram v. State of M.P. this Court held that Rule 9-A is directory and if after receiving the Public Analyst's report, the accused does not apply to the Court to have the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory, he may not be heard to complain about delay in receipt of the report by him, unless he is able to establish some other prejudice to him....
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 107 - Cited by 2 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Pothuri Ananda Venkata Subba Rao Gupta vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 June, 1990

It is not necessary for me to extract all those decisions here. In my opinion, the provision of Section 11(1)(c)(i) is evidently only a directory one. There are a host of decisions which say that the provisions of S. 10(7) are only directory and that the non-observance of those provisions will not be fatal. Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules made on the basis of S. 13(2) directing the Local (Health) Authority to send copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused was considered in the decision in Tulsiram v. State of M.P., , and it was found to be not a mandatory provision. It was held therein;
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 39 - Full Document
1