Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.68 seconds)
R.P. Patel vs State Of Punjab on 9 August, 1997 cites

Manakshi Bala vs Sudhir Kumar (M.K. Kukherjee, J.) on 10 May, 1994

Therefore, even though this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. will not normally quash the proceedings after the framing of the charge, in view of this formidable compulsion, proceedings will have to be quashed, in this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar 1994 (3) RCR 123, wherein it was held that after the framing of the charge under Section 240, Cr.P.C., the proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., except in exceptional cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course, supports the contention of the petitioner. Therefore, there will be no purpose in allowing the complaint and the consequential proceedings including the charge to continue.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 101 - M K Mukherjee - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Ors vs Gurdev Singh, Ashok Kumar on 21 August, 1991

But the vital objection of the petitioner that no notice as required under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been sent to him, goes to the root of the matter as non compliance with the said provision prejudices the petitioner in his defence. As per Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the abovesaid Act, on receipt of the report of the result of the analysis to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the local authority shall, after the institution of the prosecution against the petitioner from whom the sample of article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14-A, forward a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or the persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that either or both of them can make an application to the Court within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report, to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The allegation in the complaint-annexure P-4 is that the said Pan Parag Gutka has been purchased and marketed by M/s. Kothari Pouches Limited (third respondent). In the complaint, petitioner's name has been mentioned along with the i.e. against the name of Kothari Pouches Limited. Therefore, the notice as contemplated under Section 13(2) of the Act should have been sent to the petitioner-R.P. Patel. In paragraph 15 of the present petition, it has been mentioned that no notice as required under Section 13(2) of the Act, has been served upon the petitioner. In the reply, in paragraph 15, it has been merely stated that this paragraph is a legal para, and there is no denial. Therefore, we have to take it that no notice as contemplated under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been served upon the petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Ashok Kumar 1991 (3) RCR 270 held that the notice must state which Court the accused should approach for sending the sample to Central Food Laboratory and if it is not done, it causes prejudice. So holding the accused were acquitted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 472 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1