Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.37 seconds)

A.M.Rajan : Revision vs Food Inspector on 13 November, 2009

http://www.judis.nic.in 10 “21.In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Rahman (1993 Mah.LT 881 Bom.), it has been held that Sec.14-A prescribes a duty upon a vendor to disclose to the Food Inspector when required, the name, address and other particulars of the person from who he purchased the article food. When a Food Inspector takes samples he shall issue notice not only to person from whom he has taken sample, but also to his vendor whose name and particulars are disclosed under Sec.14- A of the Act. When the accused retails did not disclose the name of the manufacturer from whom he has purchased the article of adulterated food, he cannot fault the prosecution for not proceeding against the manufacturer. When the Accused is duty bound to disclose the name of the manufacturer under Sec.14-A of P.F. Act, the reasonings of the trial court faulting the prosecution cannot at all be sustained.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sheikh Ruman Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 July, 2024

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to issue a direction to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi to decide the case No. 1429 of 2018 (State Vs. Sheikh Ruman Ahmad) arising out of case crime No. 360 of 2014, under Sections 323, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi within stipulated period.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S K Pachori - Full Document
1