Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 281 (1.01 seconds)
Documents citing Tulsiram vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 October, 1984

Razak Rice And Oil Mills vs Bharat Narayan Patnaik, Food ... on 19 September, 1988

In view of the Tulsiram's case 1984 Cri LJ 1731 of the Supreme Court (supra), what is mandatory is that the Public Analyst's report must be sent to the accused at the earliest opportunity, so as to facilitate the exercise of the statutory right under Section 13(2) in good and sufficient time before the prosecution commences leading evidence. In the present case the Public Analyst's reports were admittedly sent to the petitioner by registered post on 18-12-1979 and the same were received by the petitioner subsequent to 18-12-1979. The prosecution was instituted against the petitioner on 22-12-1979. On a perusal of Exts. 19 and 20, it is clear that the petitioner was directed to make an application, if he so likes, before the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the Analyst's report. From Exts. 19 and 20 it must have been evident to the petitioner that the Local Health Authority had taken the preliminary steps for prosecuting him. P.W. 1 was examined in. this case on 21-8-1980, So the petitioner had sufficient time and opportunity for exercising his statutory right under Section 13(2) of the Act. So in the present case it can be safely held that the petitioner was in no way prejudiced in the conduct of his defence, when he received the Analyst's report about three days prior to the date of taking of cognizance. So the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the trial is vitiated because the analyst's report was not again sent to the petitioner subsequent to the date of taking of cognisance is without any substance.
Orissa High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

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

Tulsiram Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 April, 2015

On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that as per the prosecution case, applicant Tulsiram Gurjar and Vinay armed with Pharsa inflicted injuries to the complainant and deceased Mohan. However, Mohan died due to head injury, but as per the post-mortem report dated 25.10.10, there is no injury to Mohan by sharp cutting object. The applicant is said to have inflicted by only Pharsa. This version is not supported by the medical evidence. It is also contended (Tulsiram Vs. State of M.P.) 2 M.Cr.C. No. 2182/15 that Rameshwar received single abrasion only. Therefore, the applicant be given benefit of bail.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijaykumar Babulal Sharma vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 2015

9. In so far as the contention that the reports of the Public Analyst and the CFL did not show that the sunflower oil was unfit for the human consumption and therefore, it could not be termed as adulterated is concerned, the High Court observed that the observation made in this regard by the learned Magistrate are contrary to the settled legal position. The learned Judge of the 11 High Court referred to the decision of this Court in Tulsiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1984) 4 SCC 487 wherein it has observed that:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Devendra Ku. Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2022

In Tulsiram v. State of M.P. (1984) 4 SCC 487 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.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - V Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next