Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Section 7 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Section 13 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Shakoor vs The State Of Rajasthan on 11 November, 1976
The earlier decisions of this court in Shakoor v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and State of Rajasthan v. Noparam (supra) were not noticed in this decision.
Ishar Das vs State Of Punjab on 31 January, 1972
In Ishar Dass v. State of Punjab it has been laid down that the Act has been enacted with the aim of eradicating the anti-social evil of adulteration of food which is injurious to public health and that in view of the above object of the Act and the intention of the legislature as revealed by the fact that a minimum sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- has been prescribed, the courts should not lightly resort the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in the case of persons above 21 years of age found guilty of the offences under the Act. After the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court the Parliament amended the Act by the Amendment Act of 1976, and inserted Section 20AA in the Act whereby it has been specifically provided that nothing contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or Section 360 Cr. P. C. 1973 shall apply to a person convicted of an offence under the Act unless the person is under 18 years of age. In Prem vallabh v. State the Supreme Court has taken note of the aforesaid amendment introduced in the Act and even though the said case related to the period prior to the coming into force of the said amendment, the Supreme Court has observed that the said amendment shows the legislative intent which it would not be right for the court to ignore.
Bherulal vs The State Transport Appellate ... on 27 August, 1976
in Bherulal v. State of Rajasthan 1980 Raj. Cr. C. 62 wherein, while holding that Rule 17 postulates the sealing of the outer cover, the learned Judge further held that the provisions contained in Rule 18 for sending the copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet separately are mandatory in nature and that the direction contained in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 with regard to the sending of the copies of the reports of the result of the analysis in Form III by the Public Analyst was also mandatory in nature and that the said direction should be complied with.
The State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Saran on 10 April, 1963
In State of Rajasthan v. Ram Sehai 1979 Cr. L.R.(Raj.) 60 a learned Single Judge of this Court (M.C. Jain, J) has held that although Rule 17 does not lay down that the outer cover of container may as well be sealed but the said rule has to be read along with Rule 7 as well as Form III and if so read it would be evident that the outer cover is also required to be sealed.
Richpal Singh & Anr vs Desh Raj Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1981
In Richpal v. State of Rajasthan 1977 WLN (UC) 326 another learned single Judge of this court (Bhatnagar J) has considered the provisions of Rule 9(j) as amended with effect from February 13, 1974 and has held that the said provisions were mandatory and that since there was non-compliance with the conviction of the accused could not be sustained.
The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
1