Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.30 seconds)The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 360 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Ram Labhaya vs Municipal Cororation Of Delhi And Anr on 26 February, 1974
13. Having he considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and following the aforesaid two decisions of this Court and Ram Labhaya v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. , I am inclined to think that a fine of Rs. 1000/- would meet the ends of justice.
State Of Kerala Etc. Etc vs Alaserry Mohammed Etc. Etc on 10 February, 1978
The decision in Rajaldas G. Pamnani's case was examined by their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Stale of Kerala v. Alassrary Mohammed AIR 1978 SC 993. It was laid down as under:
Prem Ballab & Anr vs The State (Delhi Administration) on 15 September, 1976
An additional ground was also taken into consideration by their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Prem Ballab's case . It has been held in the said case:
Ghanshyam Das vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 6 August, 1974
A perusal of the report Ex. P5 of the Public Analyst shows that he, on the basis of the quantity of the chillies powder, supplied to him, was able to make a correct analysis and form the opinion that the sample of the chillies powder sent to him was adulterated and that it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. In these circumstances, though the chillies powder is a condiment, and only 150 grams of that were sent to the Public Analyst, still 88 the Public Analyst was able to form the opinion, Rule 22 was substantially complied with. As the chillies powder, the sample of which was taken from the accused respondent by the food Inspector was adulterated I have no hesitation in holding that the accused-respondent has committed an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7(1) of the Act I, therefore, set aside the acquittal of the accused recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated July 14, 1977 and convict him for an offence under Section 7(1)/7(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the accused-respondent, then, submitted that having regard to the old age of the accused & the circumstances mentioned in his affidavit, which was filed on November 11, 1978, he may be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act (No. XX of 1958). He invited my attention to Ghunshyam Das v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the decisions of M.C Jain, J., in S.B Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 1974 Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar v. Shyamsunder and Ors. and No. 411 of 1974, Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar v. Deshraj and Anr. decided on December 12, 1978, N.C. Jain, J, relying on Ghanshyam Das's case and Municipal Council.