Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Christy Fried Gram Industry vs State Of Karnataka on 30 October, 2015

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 16 June, 2022

In Christy Fried Gram Industry v. State of Karnataka, Page No.# 8/9 2016 Crl. LJ 482, it has been held that for initiation of proceedings regarding manufacture and supply of food to general public are regulated under FSS Act in complete mechanism is provided under the said Act to deal with the cases concerned with the food related laws. Section 29 of the said Act specifies the authorities responsible for enforcement of the Act and Section 30 specifies the Commissioner of Food and Safety as a competent authority to implement the provision of the Act effectively.
Gauhati High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - R K Phukan - Full Document

State vs . 1. Naresh Garg on 24 August, 2018

In this   regard,   it   has   been   held   in   Christy   Fried   Gram   Industry Bangalore & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others, 2016 Crl LJ 482   that   the   object   of   registration   of   FIR   is   to   obtain   an   early information regarding the nature of  crime names of culprits and  FIR No.379/2010               State Vs Naresh Garg Etc.. 74 part   played   by   them   as   well   as   the   names   of   the   eyewitnesses present at the time of incident.  In case of delay in lodging of FIR danger creeps in of introduction of coloured version exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberations.
Delhi District Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.M.Musthaffa vs 1. State Of Kerala Rep.By The Public ... on 28 June, 2022

The offences alleged against the petitioner in this case are under Sections 50, 59(ii) and 56 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and also under Sections 269 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, as far as the prosecution for the offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is concerned, there is a separate mechanism contemplated under the Act and the 2 nd respondent is not competent to initiate prosecution in respect of the said offence as per the statutory scheme contemplated therein. Reliance was also placed on a judgment rendered by the High Court of Karnataka in Christy Fried Gram Industry, Bangalore and Crl.M.C.No.4171/22 2 Another v. State of Karnataka and Others [2016 CriLJ 482]=[2016 KHC 2428].
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1