Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.35 seconds)
Prabhu vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 February, 1994 cites

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi And Others on 1 December, 1982

7. The decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Chisa Ram : 1967CriLJ939 was based on the fact that the sample had, in fact, been sent to the Director who returned the same saying that the sample had become highly decomposed and could not be analysed; as the Food Inspector had not taken the precaution of adding the preservatory.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 852 - S M Ali - Full Document

Ahmed Dadabhai Advani vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 1991

8. Thus, it is settled law that the appellant has a right under Section 13(2) to avail of sending the sample in the custody of the Court for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory after the prosecution was laid or immediately after notice was received by him in the case, by making an application to the Court. The duty of the prosecution to send the report is governed by Rule 9A of the Rules. After January 4, 1977, the word 'immediately' was used replacing the words "within ten days" in this Rule. The decision of this Court in Ahmed Dadabhai Advani v. State of Maharashtra : 1991CriLJ1418 relied on by the appellant does not help him. Therein, the report was stated to have been dispatched on June 13, 1974. But, in fact it was despatched on July 11, 1979. The report was of September 1, 1978. The Magistrate on the basis of those facts held that it must have been received in due course and there was delay in launching prosecution. Since the acquittal ordered by the Magistrate was interferred with by the High Court, this Court stated that the High Court was not justified in interferring with the same. The fact of non-availing of the remedy under Section 13(2) had not been considered by this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 16 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document
1