Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.45 seconds)The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Section 20 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Braham Dass vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 2 August, 1988
20. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on the decision in Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1988) 4 SCC 130 : (1988 Cri LJ 1816), where the Supreme Court directed that part of the sentence of imprisonment need not be undergone. The Supreme Court did not advert to the provision for minimum sentence incorporated in the Act by the Amending Act of 1976. The Supreme Court in this decision has not declared the law or laid down any principle of law or precedent which is binding on the High Courts or subordinate courts.
Dalchand vs Municipal Corporation, Bhopal And Anr. on 11 June, 1982
A provision in a statute or rule cannot be quasi-mandatory or quasi-directory. It is either mandatory or directory. If it is not mandatory, it is directory. Clause (j) of Rule 9 of the Rules dealing with the manner of sending copies of Public Analysis report to the accused has been held to be directory by the Supreme Court in Dalchand v. Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, AIR 1983 SC 303 : (1983 Cri LJ 448). Clauses (a) to (d) and (f) to (h) of Rule 9 merely indicate the scope and amplitude of the duties of the Food Inspector and cannot be regarded as mandatory as those duties do not have any impact on the prosecution in any case. Clause (e) requires the Food Inspector to maintain a record of all inspections made and action taken by him in the performance of his duties, including the taking of samples and seizure of stocks and to submit copies of such records to the Health Officer or the Food (Health) Authority as directed in that behalf. The record relates not only to samples taken, but to all inspections made and all action taken by him. The clause specifically requires the Food Inspector to submit copies of such record to superior officer or authority. The obvious purpose of the record or diary is to enable the supervision of the Food Inspector's actions and omissions by his superiors.
Section 10 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana vs Yad Ram on 14 October, 1986
This same principle is laid down by a learned single Judge of this Court in Gumaniram Sharma v. State of Assam, (1992) 2 Gauhati LR 60 : (1992 Cri LJ 3071), and by a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana v. Yad Ram, AIR 1987 Punj & Har 203 : (1987 Cri LJ 79). We cannot therefore reduce the sentence imposed on second accused.
Public Prosecutor vs S. Thatha Rao And Ors. on 8 July, 1966
This is the principle that was indicated by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Thatha Rao's case, AIR 1968 Andh Pra 17 (1968 Cri LJ 20).
Ganpat Ram vs State on 26 October, 1972
"........With respect we are unable to agree with the above ratio laid down by Delhi High Court as in our opinion all public functionaries are to discharge their duties in accordance with the procedure laid down by the legislature or by the Rule maker authority as laid down (sic) that the Food Inspector is to follow certain procedure as laid down in Rule 9(e). We cannot, therefore, accept that even if this Rule is not followed, the evidentiary value of the Food Inspector (sic) will not be effected. This will amount to making the rule nugatory. We. therefore, hold that the Food Inspector shall have to maintain the record of inspection as laid down in Rule 9(e) of the Rules and produce the record whenever necessary. We are not saying that this Rule is mandatory.