Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.41 seconds)The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Section 20 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
The State Of Punjab vs Ajaib Singh And Another on 10 November, 1952
In 'State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh and Ors. 2005 SCC (Cri) 43, while dealing with a case of acquittal it was observed as under in para No. 10 of the judgment:
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sirajuddin Alias Siraj vs State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 1980
In an earlier judgment reported as 1980 CAR 359 (SC), 'Sirajuddin alias Siraj v. State of Karnataka' also Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed while dealing with the scope of an appeal against a judgment of acquittal as under:
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ghisa Ram on 23 November, 1966
However, in my view the acquittal of the respondents in the present case in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghisa Ram's case (supra) cannot be said to be unjustified because the crux of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that prosecution in these kinds of cases should be launched promptly. In that case reference was also made to the opinion of an expert that if a food article, like curd, is kept in a refrigerator and a preservative is added to the sample the total period which may be available for making analysis of that sample without decomposition will be six months. In the present case, the third sample of the paneer was sent to the Central Food Laboratory after the expiry of more than six months from the date when it was taken from the shop of the respondent No. 1 and there is no explanation forthcoming from the side of the prosecution for that delay. It is admitted by the prosecution that the sample was not kept in refrigerator but was kept in at room temperature till the time from taking of the samples to sending it to CFL. PW-5 FI, Rajesh Kumar in his cross-examination has categorically stated that their department had no refrigerator in the office and the sample bottles were kept by them at ordinary room temperature in steel Almirah. In these circumstances, if the learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the accused's right under Section 13(2) of the Act had got frustrated it cannot be said that this conclusion of the trial Court is unreasonable.
1