Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)
Ashim Kumar Dutta vs State Of West Bengal And Anr. on 3 April, 1989 cites

Jaswant Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 25 October, 1957

We think that Mr. Banerjee could have referred to much more conspicuous and binding authorities on the point, for example, the decision of the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) for such a proposition, where the earlier decision of the Federal Court in Hari Ram Singh v. Emperor AIR 1939 FC 43 : 1939 (40) Cri LJ 468 and that of the Supreme Court in Basir-Ul-Hug v. State of W.B. were referred to and relied on and the view appears to be that where a previous sanction is a condition precedent, the accused cannot be convicted for an offence while the sanction is for some other offence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 119 - J L Kapur - Full Document

Mohd. Iqbal, Ahmad vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 January, 1979

2. The present revision is against an order of conviction and sentence in a prosecution Under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. The complainant Food Inspector was admittedly not authorised to institute the complaint, not being authorised to do so by the Central Government or by the State Government or by any other competent authority and has accordingly purported to file the complaint with the 'written consent' of the Local Health Authority. Mr, Banerjee, has, however, urged that the complaint merely shows the signature of the authority according the consent under the word "Consented" printed at the foot of the complaint and does not show that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts of the case and accorded consent after due deliberation. It is true that it is by now well-settled, since the decision of the Privy Council in Gokulchand Dwarkadas v. The King AIR 1948 PC 82 : 1948 (49) Cri LJ 261, endorsed by the Supreme Court, among others, in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and reiterated in Mohd Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P. , that granting of such consent or sanction, where the same is condition precedent to a prosecution, is not a mere automatic empty formality or a matter of easy insouciance, but is one of anxious advertence and that the Court must be satisfied that the same has been accorded after a due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 409 - S M Ali - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Nizamuddin Hazi Mohamedkasam on 21 June, 1978

4. The next ground urged by Mr. Banerjee is that though the complaint was instituted for the offence of storing and exposing for sale of "adulterated" food for human consumption, and the preceding 'written consent' was also for prosecution for such offence and the charge originally framed was also for such offence only, the charge was thereafter altered to one for storing and exposing for sale "misbranded" food only and the accused-petitioner has been convicted on such charge. But, according to Mr. Banerjee, since there was no 'written consent' for the prosecution for the offence relating to misbranded food, the written consent being exclusively confined to offence relating to adulterated food, the conviction was patently imcompetent on that score alone and Mr. Banerjee has relied on a single Judge decision of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Nizamuddin Hazi 1979 Cri LJ 274, for the purpose.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Basir-Ul-Huq And Others vs The State Of West ... on 10 April, 1953

We think that Mr. Banerjee could have referred to much more conspicuous and binding authorities on the point, for example, the decision of the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) for such a proposition, where the earlier decision of the Federal Court in Hari Ram Singh v. Emperor AIR 1939 FC 43 : 1939 (40) Cri LJ 468 and that of the Supreme Court in Basir-Ul-Hug v. State of W.B. were referred to and relied on and the view appears to be that where a previous sanction is a condition precedent, the accused cannot be convicted for an offence while the sanction is for some other offence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 97 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

Bhagwan Dass Jagdish Chander vs Delhi Administration on 25 March, 1975

But once it is accepted that the package in the shape and the form in which the accused and his company, as wholesaler, distributes or sells curry-powder, bears the requisite declaration, and that the accused and his company do not deal in small packets or in any package which does not bear the requisite declaration, it would not be unreasonable to hold that the accused, dealing as a wholesaler in such large package bearing the requisite declaration, is not guilty of non-compliance with the Rule, It may be that since the smaller packets do not separately bear any such declaration, any retailer to whom the accused would be selling the large package and who, in his turn, would be selling the smaller packets in retail, would be guilty of non-compliance with the relevant Rule. But we are concerned here with the accused only, who and whose company are admittedly wholesalers only and the clear prosecution evidence is that the packages in which they sell or distribute curry-powder as wholesalers bear the requisite label. Can they still be liable for non-compliance with the Rule and dealing in misbranded food? The three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Das v. Delhi Administration appears to be an authority for the view that before a dealer, whether manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer, can be convicted for storing or exposing for sale or selling adulterated or misbranded food, it must be shown that the food was already adulterated or misbranded before he "parted with the article of food". Be it noted that here the article of food was found on examination by the Central Food Laboratory not to be adulterated and there cannot be any two opinions that offence of adulteration is a grave menace to the health and well-being of the community, makes a heavy dent in the already low nutritional standard prevailing in our country and that a major offensive against such a social offence is now a dire necessity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 90 - M H Beg - Full Document

Dhan Kumar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 20 February, 1979

8. It may be true that even though the accused as wholesaler distributes in larger packages duly labelled as per the Rules, since the larger package contains smaller packets without label, that might lead to the retail-sellers selling those smaller packets without complying with Rule 42( I). But, as already noted, we are here concerned with the present accused, who undisputedly deals in wholesale in larger packages only and those packages are duly labelled and, therefore, not misbranded If the law has obliged a dealer to duly label the package, the dealer is obliged to label the package in the shape and form in which he deals with the same. At least such a view, to our mind, is not unreasonable, even if the other view that he must take care also of the smaller packets in which the retailers would eventually sell, is also not unreasonable. And if both these views are thus reasonably possible, then as rules by the Supreme Court in Dhan Kumar (1979 Cri LJ 1343) (supra), the former view in favour of accused would have to be accepted and the accused would have to be acquitted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka vs The King on 13 January, 1948

2. The present revision is against an order of conviction and sentence in a prosecution Under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. The complainant Food Inspector was admittedly not authorised to institute the complaint, not being authorised to do so by the Central Government or by the State Government or by any other competent authority and has accordingly purported to file the complaint with the 'written consent' of the Local Health Authority. Mr, Banerjee, has, however, urged that the complaint merely shows the signature of the authority according the consent under the word "Consented" printed at the foot of the complaint and does not show that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts of the case and accorded consent after due deliberation. It is true that it is by now well-settled, since the decision of the Privy Council in Gokulchand Dwarkadas v. The King AIR 1948 PC 82 : 1948 (49) Cri LJ 261, endorsed by the Supreme Court, among others, in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and reiterated in Mohd Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P. , that granting of such consent or sanction, where the same is condition precedent to a prosecution, is not a mere automatic empty formality or a matter of easy insouciance, but is one of anxious advertence and that the Court must be satisfied that the same has been accorded after a due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 203 - Full Document
1   2 Next