Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.83 seconds)
Vijaykumar Babulal Sharma vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 2015 cites

Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar ... vs Mohammad Wasim on 31 March, 1992

8. The High Court while addressing another ground of acquittal wherein the learned Magistrate noted that there a delay in analyzing the sample and the empty space in bottle led to increase in the 9 acidity of the oil, observed that there was no unreasonable delay in carrying out the analysis. The report of the Public Analyst revealed that the sample of sunflower oil was analyzed before 18.9.1995 which was within the period of 45 days from collection of the sample oil and therefore, the analysis was completed. The learned Judge of the High Court further observed that the reliance placed in the case of Nagar Swasthaya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika (supra) by the learned Magistrate is not proper since the facts of the given case are not on the same footings. In that case there was delay of 46 days in analyzing the sample with empty space in the sample phial. The learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in that case discarded the report of the Public Analyst due to circumstances obtained in that case. So far as variation is concerned, it cannot be ascribed to empty space in the bottles and unless it is shown that the empty space in the sample bottle could cause the variations on account of any scientific 10 reason, such kind of inference cannot be drawn merely on basis of guess-work. The learned Judge of the High Court noted that in the light of the opinion of the Director, CFL that the oil sample was fit for the purpose of the analysis and the sample was properly stored, it is not permissible to draw inferences based on mere conjectures about probable changes in the standard of the food article only because some part of the sample bottle was vacant inasmuch as half of the sample bottle was filled with the sunflower oil.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Food Inspector, Ernakulam And Anr vs P.S. Sreenivasa Shenoy on 19 July, 2000

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Respondent-State carried the matter in appeal before the High Court. The High Court partly set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. The High Court observed that the appellant-herein was acquitted by the learned Magistrate primarily on the ground for want of fresh consent required under Section 20 of the Act after the receipt of CFL report by the Trial Court. The High Court, however, differed in its view and noted that the dictum in S.M. Anwar (supra) as relied on by the learned Magistrate is no more good law in view of the decision in Food Inspector, Ernakulam and Anr. v. P.S.Sreenivasa Shenoy (2000) 6 SCC 348 wherein this Court has held that when a report of a Public Analyst is superseded by a certificate of Director of the CFL, it is not necessary to obtain afresh consent to institute prosecution and re-commence the proceedings under the Act. If the prosecution has been validly instituted, neither any new data 8 nor any added reasons contained in the certificate issued by the Director of CFL would be sufficient to annul the sanction already obtained with which the prosecution was already instituted. The trial has to proceed on the certificate on record which superseded the report of the Public Analyst. The High Court in this regard noticed the observations of this Court wherein it has been held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

Tulsiram vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 October, 1984

9. In so far as the contention that the reports of the Public Analyst and the CFL did not show that the sunflower oil was unfit for the human consumption and therefore, it could not be termed as adulterated is concerned, the High Court observed that the observation made in this regard by the learned Magistrate are contrary to the settled legal position. The learned Judge of the 11 High Court referred to the decision of this Court in Tulsiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1984) 4 SCC 487 wherein it has observed that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 136 - O C Reddy - Full Document

S.M. Anwar And Co. And Anr. vs State Of West Bengal And Anr. on 5 August, 1993

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Respondent-State carried the matter in appeal before the High Court. The High Court partly set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. The High Court observed that the appellant-herein was acquitted by the learned Magistrate primarily on the ground for want of fresh consent required under Section 20 of the Act after the receipt of CFL report by the Trial Court. The High Court, however, differed in its view and noted that the dictum in S.M. Anwar (supra) as relied on by the learned Magistrate is no more good law in view of the decision in Food Inspector, Ernakulam and Anr. v. P.S.Sreenivasa Shenoy (2000) 6 SCC 348 wherein this Court has held that when a report of a Public Analyst is superseded by a certificate of Director of the CFL, it is not necessary to obtain afresh consent to institute prosecution and re-commence the proceedings under the Act. If the prosecution has been validly instituted, neither any new data 8 nor any added reasons contained in the certificate issued by the Director of CFL would be sufficient to annul the sanction already obtained with which the prosecution was already instituted. The trial has to proceed on the certificate on record which superseded the report of the Public Analyst. The High Court in this regard noticed the observations of this Court wherein it has been held:
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1