Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing The Public Prosecutor vs R. Karuppian on 19 September, 1957

Shantanu Rastogi vs State Ofkarnataka on 21 January, 2021

In Public Prosecutor v. R. Karuppian, Somasundaram, J., while dealing with a case arising under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [(Section 17(1)] observed that the Secretary of the Cooperative Milk Society, on the facts of the case, could not be held to be a person in-charge of the Society. On the facts of that case the business of selling milk was done by the clerk of the Society and the secretary was only an honorary Secretary and was not coming to the Society daily 11.5.2. National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd.
Karnataka High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 0 - S Govindaraj - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Bhagwan Dass on 10 February, 1972

(18) The next case relied upon by the learned counsel of Shri Bhagwan Dass is a decision of Somasundaram J. in The Public Prosecutor v. R. Karuppian (AIR 1958 Madras 183)0. The case relates to a person who was Honorary Secretary of a Cooperative society. He was not going to the society daily and the business was left in the hands of the clerk with a check over him by the Secretary. It was held that apparently day-to-day business of selling the milk was done by the clerk and although the Secretary was expected to maintain a check over him it would not make him a' person, at the time the offence was committed, in charge of the business and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Society, more so when the prosecution had failed to let in any evidence that the Secretary was a person who was responsible to the Society for the conduct of its business.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

K.S. Chandrasekharan vs Inspector Of Police, Civil Supplies ... on 27 September, 1988

In the Public Prosecutor v. Karuppian, (1958) 1 Mad LJ 20 : (1958 Cri LJ 527), Somasundaram J. while considering the scope of prosecuting an Honorary Secretary of a Co-operative Society in connection with the offences committed by the vendor of milk of the Co-operative Milk Supply society, and while construing similar provisions under Sections 16(1) and 17(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 37 of 1954, observed as follows :-
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Girdhari Lal Gupta vs D.H. Mehta And Anr. on 18 February, 1971

In The Public Prosecutor v. R. Karuppian A.I.R. [1058] Mad. 183., Somasundaram, J., while dealing with a case arising under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Section 17(1)) observed that the Secretary of the Co-operative Milk Society, on the facts of the case, could not be held to be a person in charge of the Society. On the facts of that case the business of selling milk was done by the clerk of the Society and the Secretary was only an honorary Secretary and was not coming to the Society daily.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 114 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Girdharilal Gupta & Anr vs D. N. Mehta, Collector Of Customs & Anr on 18 August, 1970

In The Public Prosecutor v. R. Karuppian(3), Somasundaram J., while dealing with a case arising under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (s. 17(1)) observed that the Secretary of the Co-operative Milk Society, on the facts of the case, could not be held to be a person in charge of the Society. On the facts of that case the business of selling milk was done by the clerk of the Society and the Secretary was only an honorary Secretary and was not coming to. the Society daily.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 17 - S M Sikri - Full Document

The Venjaramoodu Ksheera Vyavasaya vs Unknown on 31 October, 2012

The decision of the Madras High Court in Public Prosecutor v. R. Crl.R.P. No. 13 of 2006 -:20:- Karuppan - AIR 1958 Madras 183 has been cited by Mr. Hood, the learned counsel for the petitioner. That was a case where trial of an offence was had under Section 16 (1) of the P.F.A. Act against a Co-operative Milk Society. The evidence in that case disclosed that the day- to-day business of selling the milk was done by the Clerk of the Society. The Secretary arrayed as accused was only a honorary Secretary. He was not going to the Society daily and the business was left in the hands of the Clerk with a check over him by the Secretary. Therefore, it was held that it would not make the Secretary a person who at the time of the offence was in charge of and was responsible to the Society for the conduct of the business within the meaning of Section 17 (1) of the Act. The aforesaid decision is quite apposite to the facts of the case, the learned counsel Mr. T.B. Hood, submits.
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - N K Balakrishnan - Full Document

Sadhuram And Ors. vs State Through Food Inspector on 8 April, 1965

Be that as it may, the Court itself was allowing the appeal on the ground that it could not even be said on the evidence before it that the company itself had committed the offence. Of course, where the company had not committed the offence, there was no question of investigating whether this or that partner or director would be liable under Section 17(1) of the Act. Similarly, in the Madras case reported in Public Prosecutor v. R. Karuppian, AIR 1958 Mad 183, it was found on the facts that the duties of the Secretary of the Cooperative Society concerned who was being prosecuted were restricted only to checking the cash received by the clerk and examining the accounts rendered by him. On that finding the Secretary could not be held to be responsible for or being in charge of the business of supplying milk. So it was held when the Cooperative Milk Supplying Society was guilty of selling adulterated stuff the Secretary could not be convicted. There again the decision emerged out of a finding of fact.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1