Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (1.82 seconds)The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Hindustan Lever Limited vs Government Food Inspector on 18 July, 2011
Here also it is an admitted fact that no standards are
prescribed for Milkshake and when there is no standards
prescribed, how can the Public Analyst report - Exh.2, states
Page 12 of 22
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 04:44:24 IST 2022
R/CR.A/289/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/12/2022
that the sample does not conform to the standards. Hence, in
view of the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment
of Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Food Inspector (supra)
prosecution for food article wherein no standard are
prescribed is not sustainable.
Section 20 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
S. Rama Krishna vs S. Rami Reddy (D) By His Lrs. & Ors on 29 April, 2008
12. This Court time and again has laid down the
guidelines for the High Court to interfere with the
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial
court. The appellate court should not ordinarily set
aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two
views are possible, though the view of the appellate
court may be the more probable one. While dealing
with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has
to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to
arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the
trial court were perverse or otherwise
unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to
consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the
trial court had failed to take into consideration
admissible evidence and/or had taken into
consideration the evidence brought on record
contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden
of proof may also be a subject-matter of scrutiny by
the appellate court. (Vide Balak Ram v. State of U.P
(1975) 3 SCC 219, Shambhoo Missir v. State of
Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17, Shailendra Pratap v. State
of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761, Narendra Singh v. State of
M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699, Budh Singh v. State of U.P
(2006) 9 SCC 731, State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh
(2007) 13 SCC 102, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami
Reddy (2008) 5 SCC 535, Arulvelu v. State (2009)
Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors vs State Of A.P Rep.By Public Prosecutor on 6 May, 2009
10 SCC 206, Perla Somasekhara Reddy v. State of
A.P (2009) 16 SCC 98 and Ram Singh v. State of H.P
(2010) 2 SCC 445)
Page 8 of 22
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 04:44:24 IST 2022
R/CR.A/289/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/12/2022
State Of Goa vs Sanjay Thakran And Anr on 2 March, 2007
14. The aforesaid principle of law has consistently
been followed by this Court. (See Tulsiram Kanu v.
State AIR 1954 SC 1, Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab
AIR 1957 SC 216, M.G. Agarwal v. State of
Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200, Khedu Mohton v.
State of Bihar (1970) 2 SCC 450, Sambasivan v.
State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 412, Bhagwan Singh v.
State of M.P(2002) 4 SCC 85 and State of Goa v.
Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755)
Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2007
In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4
SCC 415, this Court reiterated the legal position as
under: (SCC p. 432, para 42)
"(1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon
which the order of acquittal is founded.
Ghurey Lal vs State Of U.P on 30 July, 2008
In Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P (2008) 10 SCC
450, this Court reiterated the said view, observing
that the appellate court in dealing with the cases in
which the trial courts have acquitted the accused,
should bear in mind that the trial court's acquittal
bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. The
appellate court must give due weight and
consideration to the decision of the trial court as the
trial court had the distinct advantage of watching
the demeanour of the witnesses, and was in a better
position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.