Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.84 seconds)Mohinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 31 July, 1963
3. The learned Public Prosecutor has assailed the judgment of the learned Magistrate on the ground that, when the sample had been given to the accused as per rules it was obligatory on him to produce his sample so that report from the Central Food Laboratory may be obtained. The learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the principle enunciated in the case of Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1975 FAJ 342(Punj and Har). In that case the bottle of the sample with the accused was found to be broken. The bottle containing third sample smashed while in transit to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. The accused was convicted on the basis of analysis of the Public Analyst. His Lordship was pleased to observe that no doubt whenever suspicious circumstances come into existence in such cases, to which the prosecution has contributed by its acts of commission or omission, the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused. The conviction was however for the reason that in that case no such criticism could be lodged against the prosecution.
Section 13 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Gurbachan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 1957
4. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the respondent controverting these contentions submitted that simply because the respondent could not produce the sample bottle given to him, he cannot be held guilty because it was the duty of the prosecution and the authorities concerned to keep the bottle retained by them in proper condition. That, if the bottle was found to be empty at the Central Food Laboratory the accused was entitled to the benefit he had been given by the learned Magistrate. The learned Counsel referred to the cases of Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab 1972 FAC 582 : 1973 Cri LJ 765(Punj.)
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ghisa Ram on 23 November, 1966
Reliance was placed on the principle enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram that in a case where there is denial of right conferred by Section 13(2) on account of the conduct of the prosecution the conviction cannot be sustained.
Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Chintamani Das And Ors. vs The State on 2 September, 1969
5. In the case of Gurbachan Singh 1973 Cri LJ 765(Punj.) (supra) the sample kept by the Food Inspector was not properly sealed and stoppered. His Lordship was pleased to consider the argument advanced on behalf of the accused petitioner that he was entitled to acquittal for the reason that his right to have the sample analysed from the Director, Central Food Laboratory Calcutta had been taken away by the conduct of the prosecution in not keeping the bottle properly sealed and stoppered. His Lordship was of the view that the right of the accused to obtain the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory was taken away by the carelessness of the complainant to keep the bottle with the seal intact and in proper condition, and in this situation it would not be safe to hold the petitioner guilty of the offence beyond doubt. His Lordship referred to the case of Chintamani v. State 1964 All LJ 893 wherein the true meaning and the scope of Sub-section (1) (c) (iii) of Section 11 were considered and it was held as under:
1