Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Gujarat vs Shantaben Wife Of Bhol Dhulabhai on 6 August, 1963

Sc No.06-09 (State vs . Narain Bhol & Ors.) on 5 May, 2011

SC No.06-09 (State Vs. Narain Bhol & Ors.) 5.1 In respect of convict Rakesh Mathur, I consider that a distinction can be made in view of the fact that he has remained on bail during the trial and has also attended the trial regularly and during this period also, he did not involve himself in any offence. Therefore, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances, I consider that sentence of RI for 02 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/­ in default SI for 02 months, shall meet the ends of justice.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satrughna Behera vs Puri Municipality on 17 July, 1967

The material facts stated in the report pertaining to Rules 7 and 18 are that the Public Analyst certified that the sample was properly sealed and fastened, and that he found the seal intact and unbroken. This certificate is given by the Public Analyst under Rule 7(3) after the conditions laid down in Rule 7(1) & (2) are fulfilled. In other words, on receipt of the packet containing the sample for analysis from Food Inspector or any other person, the Public Analyst shall compare the seal on the container and the outer conver with specimen impression received separately and shall note the condition of the seals thereon. Thereafter, under Sub-rule (2) he would make the analysis and then he would send the report in Form No. III. The report in Form No. III is thus preceded by certain ostensible acts which are, (i) comparison as prescribed in Sub-rule (1) and (ii) analysis referred to in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules. The report of the Public Analyst is thus by itself evidence of fact of the compliance of Rules 7(1) and 18.
Orissa High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Gela Hira Rabari vs S.V. Pandya And Anr. on 5 August, 1969

Rule 7 and 18 are framed in terms of command, and there is no indication from the nature or wording of the rules or the surrounding circumstances that they are to receive a permissive interpretation. Having regard to the legislative intent in framing these two rules, the nature of the rules, their design and the consequences which would follow from their non-compliance, in my opinion, Rule 7 and 18 are mandatory rules. To say that the Rules could be regarded as directory because the accused is given the liberty of submitting the sample in his possession for analysis, is to render the guarantee afforded by the Rules meaningless. The question had come up for consideration before Raju, J. In State of Gujarat v. Shantaben, AIR 1964 Guj 136, wherein the learned Judge has, on a consideration of the scheme of the Act and the Rules observed at p. 139 of the report:
Gujarat High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Mary Lazrado vs State Of Mysore And Anr. on 28 June, 1965

In support of her contention she placed reliance, amongst other decisions, on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v. Shantaben , which fully supports her stand. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the two rules were directory in character and that their non-compliance could not vitiate the Order of conviction. According to him, the two Rules could not be regarded as mandatory since S. 13 of the Act conferred liberty on the accused to make an application to the Court for sending the part of the sample delivered to her, to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for a certificate and show that the report made by the Public Analyst was wrong.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 17 - 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

Laxman Sitaram Pai And Anr. vs The State Of Mysore on 2 February, 1966

19. However, in support of her contention, Miss Anasuya relies on the decision , State of Gujarat v. Shantaben, that Ext. 17, the report, has no evidentiary value since it is not in due compliance with Rules 7 and 18 of the Act. What has been stated in that decision is that Rules 7 and 18 are framed in order to prevent the possibility of tampering with the sample before it reaches the Public Analyst. There is nothing on record to show that these rules have been complied with, either by the Food Inspector or the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst merely shows that the seals were intact and unbroken. But it does not show that the seals on the container were compared with the specimen seal sent by post to the Public Analyst. Unless this is done, the Court cannot be sure that the sample which has reached the Analyst was not tampered with on the way and Rules 7 and 18 are framed in order to prevent such a possibility. As this has not been done,. we. cannot say that the report of the Public Analyst refers to the samples of the milk.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Laxman Sitaram Pai And Anr. vs The State Of Mysore on 2 February, 1966

19. However, in support of her contention, Miss Anasuya relies on the decision , State of Gujarat v. Shantaben, that Ext. 17, the report, has no evidentiary value since it is not in due compliance with Rules 7 and 18 of the Act. What has been stated in that decision is that Rules 7 and 18 are framed in order to prevent the possibility of tampering with the sample before it reaches the Public Analyst. There is nothing on record to show that these rules have been complied with, either by the Food Inspector or the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst merely shows that the seals were intact and unbroken. But it does not show that the seals on the container were compared with the specimen seal sent by post to the Public Analyst. Unless this is done, the Court cannot be sure that the sample which has reached the Analyst was not tampered with on the way and Rules 7 and 18 are framed in order to prevent such a possibility. As this has not been done, we cannot say that the report of the Public Analyst refers to the samples of the milk.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1