Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing State Of M.P. vs Abbasbhai Tyab Ali Bohra on 25 August, 1966

The Commissioner (Now Administrator) ... vs Satyanarain And Co. Partnership Firm ... on 19 September, 1975

4. As to the first, the correctness of the view taken by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Abbasbhai 1967 Cri LJ 1723 (Madh Pra) (Supra) was questioned before a Full Bench in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chhotekhan Nannekhan and the Full Bench has overruled it. That being so, the acquittal of the respondents on the ground that the report of the Public Analyst, Ex.-11 was inadmissible cannot be sustained.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - A P Sen - Full Document

Lachmi Narain vs State on 11 September, 1969

In support of his argument, learned counsel relies on a Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Abbasbhai (1967 Jabalpur Law Journal 779) where the learned Judges following the judgment of V. B. Raju J. in State of Gujarat v. Shantaben held that rules 7 and 18 were mandatory and when those rules were nto followed one could nto be sure that the samples reaching the public analyst had nto been tampered on the way. In the case before Raju J. also the report of the public analyst merely showed that the seals were intact and un-broken; but it did nto show that the seals in the container were compared with the specimen seals sent to the public analyst. I do nto consider it necessary to express any definite opinion on the point as the question raised by the learned counsel is a mixed question of fact and law and no such question was raised by the petitioner in the two courts below. As at present advised, I also find it difficult to go to the length to which the learned Judges of Madhya Pradesh High Court and Raju J. of Gujarat High Court appear to have gone. The report Exhibit P5 (the other reports are in the same terms) states inter alia that "I ....... Sudhamoy Roy public Analyst for Delhi Municipal Corporation area, duly appointed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 received on 31st day of March 1965, from Sh. Shanti Nath F.I. ......a sample of Haldi sabat s-2614 for analysis, properly sealed and fastened and that I found seal intact and unbroken." In my opinion, the certificate which purports to have been issued on a form prescribed under rule 7(3) of the Rules and states that the sample when received for analysis was "properly sealed and fastened" and that the seal was found intact and unbroken clearly shows that the person signing the certificate had satisfied himself that the provisions of subrule (1) of rule (7) with regard to comparison of the seals in the container and the outer cover with the specimen impression received separately under rule 18 had been duly observed, otherwise it would nto nave been possible for him to certify that sample when received was "properly sealed." The contention is therfore over-ruled.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1