Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ghisa Ram on 23 November, 1966
In the light of the dictums of the Apex Court in the
matters of Municipal Corporation, State of Haryana, Shri
Rohit & Suresh (supra), continuance of criminal proceeding
would amount to abuse of the process of the Court relating to
petitioner No.1.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940
The Insecticides Act, 1968
Section 17 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
The State Of Punjab vs National Organic Chemical Industries ... on 25 October, 1996
In State of Punjab v. National
Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., (1996) 10
JT (SC) 480 this Court in somewhat similar
circumstances said that the procedure laid
down under Section 24 of the Act deprived the
accused to have sample tested by the Central
Insecticides Laboratory and adduce evidence
of the report so given in his defence. This
Court stressed the need to lodge the
complaint with utmost dispatch so that the
accused may opt to avail the statutory
defence. The Court held that the accused had
been deprived of a valuable right statutorily
available to him. On this view of the
matter, the Court did not allow the criminal
complaint to proceed against the accused. We
have cases under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 involving the same question.
State Of Haryana vs Brij Lal Mittal & Ors on 30 April, 1998
In
this connection reference be made to
decisions of this Court in State of Haryana
v. Brij Lal Mittal, (1998) 5 SCC 343 : (1998
AIR SCW 2240 : AIR 1998 SC 2327 : 1998 Cri LJ
3287) under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa
Ram, AIR 1967 SC 970 : (1967 Cri LJ 939);
Chetumal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 24 April, 1981
Chetumal v. State of M.P., (1981) 3 SCC 72 :
G. Sagar Suri And Anr vs State Of Up. And Ors on 28 January, 2000
In the present circumstances of the case, I am of the
view that the petitioners have been able to make out
sufficient case for quashment of criminal proceeding, under
Section 482 of the Code without approaching the Judicial
Magistrate concerned, and the instant petition is
maintainable as held in the matters of M/s. Pepsi (supra) &
G. Sagar (supra).