Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)Section 20 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 342 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Bhagwan Dass Jagdish Chander vs Delhi Administration on 25 March, 1975
18. Shri Sethi, however, strenuously contended that reference to sub-section (1) of Section 351 of the Code in Section 20-A of the Act was of a descriptive nature not attracting its applicability because under Section 20-A of the Act a person whether present in Court or not can be summoned and imp leaded as an accused person in the absence of sanction to prosecute him when the Court is trying any person for having committed an offence under the Act while Section 351(1) of the Code talks of a person present in Court alone being imp leaded as an accused person. That being so, he submitted, the provisions of Section 351(2) could not be said to be applicable to a case tried by a Magistrate in respect of an offence committed under the Act. He further contended that this aspect of the matter was not brought to the notice of the Full Bench of this Court in M/s. Bhagwan Dass Jagdish Chander's case 1975 Cri LJ 1091 (SC) (supra) and accordingly sought to distinguish that authority. The Code being applicable to the trials of the offences committed under the Act, the distinction sought to be made out is in vain. Section 351(2) is applicable to all trials under the Act and its non-compliance is fatal.
Section 351 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Laxmi Narain Tandon Etc. Etc on 17 December, 1975
A Full Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi Narain, 1972 FAC 511 : (1973 Cri LJ 690), has held that the Act is a Special Act which provides no procedure for the trial of offences under the Act, and hence offences committed under the Act have to be tried according to the provisions of the Code.
V. N. Kamdar And Another vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 1 May, 1973
20. Shri Sethi placing strong reliance on the observations of their Lordships in V. N. Kamdar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, that even in a case where a Magistrate could properly have imp leaded the manufacturer, distributor or dealer in a proceeding against a person alleged to have committed an offence under the Act but failed to do so, that would not in any way confer an immunity upon the manufacturer, distributor or dealer from a prosecution for any offence committed by him, and to bar his separate trial, contended that since a separate complaint after obtaining requisite permission could be filed, it would be appropriate to remand this case against the respondent for a fresh trial. I find no force in this submission. The learned counsel is not right in this submission.
The Special Courts Act, 1979
1