Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
The State Of Gujarat vs Navalkishor Damodardas Patel And Ors. on 12 February, 1974 cites

V.B Shukla, Food Inspector, Ahmedabad ... vs Prakash Vishandas And Anr. on 31 July, 1972

11. Lastly it is argued that this High Court has itself imposed sentences of fine in the past and therefore I should follow suit. Reliance is peaced on Bhavnagar Municipality v. Nart DI Anr. 12 Q.L.K. sn decided by Divan J. as he then was, and V.B. Shukla, Food Inspector v. PakalhyLldas and Anr. 14 G.L.R. 381, decided by T.U. Mehta J. T do not read any such proposition in the above decisions where on he facts of the case before the Court a sentence of fine was imposed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Public Prosecutor vs Meenakshi Achi And Anr. on 15 December, 1967

If any such point had been made in the trial Court, the prosecution could have adduced necessary evidence. In the present state of affairs it is not possible to uphold the contention that Rule 7(3) is contravened. But assuming that it is contravened, I am not prepared to hold that it vitiates the trial. It was argued that Rule 7(3) which enjoins that the report should be sent within sixty days was mandatory in character Reliance was placed in support of this contention on Public Prosecutor v. Meenakshi Achi and Anr. 1970 Criminal Law Journal 926. On a perusal of this judgment, it appears that it does not deal with Rule 7(3) at all No question as to within what time-limit the report of the Public Analyst should be sent arose in that matter. This question was not directly before the High Court. What was before the High Court was Rule 7(2) which was held to be mandatory. We are not concerned with that part of the rule. We are concerned with Rule 7(3) which does not appear to have come up for consideration heretobefore. In my opinion, the rule is directory in character and not mandatory. What is the purpose in insisting on the report being "sent" within "sixty" days? There is no magic of mysterical significance in sending the report within a specified time It would have been a different matter if the rule enjoined "examination" of the sample within a specified period for the sample is liable to deteriorate or alter with the passage of time. This rule has obviously been enacted only to ensure that the proceedings are completed within the shortest possible time. Substantial compliance therewith is, therefore, sufficient. Even if, therefore, it is possible to take the view that it is not satisfactorily shown that report was "sent" within sixty days, 1 would not have sustained the contention that the prosecution was vitiated.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1