Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.01 seconds)Section 14 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Jose Da Costa And Anr. vs Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim And ... on 1 August, 1975
(22) The Supreme Court in Jose Da Costs and another v. Bascora Sadashiva Sinai Norcornin and others, held the provisions which touch a right in existence at the passing of statute are not to be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment.
The Amending Act, 1897
Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Rameshwar Dass Chottey Lal And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 10 October, 1969
(6) On 7th March, 1974 an order was passed discharging Mangha Ram, M(s. Jamna Provision Store and M/s. Ram Chand Hira Chand. Ram Chand was allowed to be imp leaded as accused No. 4 as sole proprietor of M/s. Mangha Ram Ram Chand. We may notice here that the firms were discharged on the ground that the offence said to be committed was compulsorily punishable with imprisonment and since the firms could not be sentenced to any term of imprisonment, the firms could not be prosecuted. This was in view of the decision of this Court in M/s. Rameshwar Dass Chhotey Lal and others v. Union of India and others. . The complainant examined' a few witnesses. On 16th July 1975 the magistrate passed an order for impleadment of M/s. Mangha Ram Ram Chand and its partners Ram Chand and Mangha Ram. The magistrate in the order observed that it has come in the evidence that Ram Chand is not the sole proprietor of M/s. Mangha Ram Ram Chand and that in fact, the said firm is a partnership firm and Mangha Ram and Ram Chand are its partners. The order, purports to have been passed under Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Thereafter the trial proceeded. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence all the accused were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code . Bhag Mal stated that he had got the Jamna Provision Store registered in 1971 and that he closed his business and the business under the name Jamna Provision Store at Shop No. 1.875 was the business of bids son Bal Mukand. Bhag Maldenied that Bal Mukand was his salesman. Bhag Mal showed his ignorance regarding the taking of the sample.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs J.B. Bottling Company Private Limited on 14 March, 1975
(16) On 16th July 1975 the magistrate passed an order for impleading Ram Chand and Mangha Ram and the firm M/s. Mangha Ram Ram Chand as accused. The above order was passed under Section 20-A.
(17) We may mention here that the firm Mangha Ram Ram Chand was not imp leaded earlier, as an accused for the reason noticed by us above but since in the meantime in case [M.C.D. v. J. B. Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. 1975(1) FA.C. 321(4)] it was held that a company could be convicted in respect of an offence which is compulsorily punishable with imprisonment, the magistrate decided to implead Mangha Ram Ram Chand also as an accused.
Krushna Chandra vs Commr. Of Endowments And Ors. on 23 September, 1975
In Krushna Chandra v. Commr. of Endowments and others, a division beach of that court held : "It is a fundamental rule of construction that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clear in the terms of the Act or arises by necessary and distinct implication. An offshoot of this rule that if the enactment is expressed in the language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only and that there is a presumption against a retrospective operation if, when so operated, it would prejudicially affect the vested rights or the legality of past transactions."
1