Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.32 seconds)
State Of Mah, Thr Shri Jagdish Khushal ... vs Sayyed Shahid Ali Sayyed Mujaffarali on 5 July, 2018
cites
The State Of Maharashtra vs Abbas Ismail Shaikh on 25 February, 1997
In this context, the
guidelines are issued in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Abbas Ismail Shaikh
reported in 1998 ALL MR(Cri) 1604. In that case oil sample was not shown to be taken
in a clean bottle and in the absence of independent panch, the Food Inspector's
testimony was not found to be credible. Thus the accused was given the benefit of doubt.
Mahendra Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P on 24 February, 2009
In the case of Mahendra Pratap Singh .vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
reported in (2009) 11 SCC 334, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given a rule of prudence that
if on appraisal of evidence and on considering relevant attending circumstances, it is
found that two views are possible, one for acquitting accused and other for convicting
accused, in such a situation rule of prudence should guide High Court not to disturb the
order of acquittal made by the trial court, unless conclusions of trial court drawn on
evidence on record are found to be unreasonable and perverse or unsustainable, High
Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal.
Commnr. Of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd on 10 December, 2010
In the case of Commissioner of
Central Excise, Chandigarh .vs. Pepsi Foods Limited, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 601,
it is further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that unless there are substantial and
compelling circumstances, order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal.
State Of Punjab vs Raman Kumar on 26 September, 1997
In this context, learned Advocate for the accused placed reliance upon
the judgment in the case of State of Punjab vs. Raman Kumar, reported in 1998 ALL
MR (Cri) Journal 17, which is a full bench decision delivered by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana, wherein it was held that sending of samples for analysis in polythene
containers is not valid and polythene and thick paper wrapper is not suitable container
as contemplated under Rule 14 of the Rules. It was further held as under -
Section 14 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Harbeer Singh vs Sheeshpal & Ors on 20 October, 2016
In
the case of Harbeer Singh .vs. Sheeshpal and others, reported in (2016) 16 SCC 418,
it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the same facts that another view could
also have been taken on the evidence on record, is not a ground for reversing an order of
acquittal. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no interference is warranted
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 00:22:42 :::
Appeal.719.08+
9
with the order of acquittal. Hence, the following order :
1