Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)
Food Inspector/Food Safety Officer vs Santosh Sharma & Ors. on 2 December, 2013 cites

State Of Bihar And Another vs Ramesh Chandra And Another on 20 March, 1997

7. Another observation made by the trial court is that there is no explanation on record as to why after obtaining the opinion of the Public Analyst in respect of the sample of Full Cream Milk, a period of almost 13 months was taken by the department to launch the prosecution against the accused person despite the fact that complainant is well aware that accused can exercise his valuable right under Section 13(2) of PFA Act to get analysed the second counterpart of the sample from the Director, CFL, only after institution of complaint and, thus, the trial court was of the opinion that the period of more than 13 months in filing the complaint in case of sample of Full Cream Milk, adversely affected the right of the accused persons under Section 13(2) of PFA Act. The trial court has relied upon a CRL.L.P.No.696/2013 Page 4 of 7 decision rendered in the case of State v. Ramesh Chand, reported at 2010 (2) J.C.C. 1250 (Delhi), wherein the High Court has upheld the order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, affirming the view point that the delay in filing the complaint as well as the variation between the reports of PA and CFL (in respect of fat contents in the sample of Paneer), could be fatal so as to materially prejudice the defence of the accused more particularly, when the article in question (even to the knowledge of PFA Officials) was of perishable nature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 181 - Full Document

State (Delhi Administration) vs Ram Singh on 21 May, 1990

Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has distinguished the present case from the judgment rendered in State v. Ramesh Chand (supra), which has been relied upon by the trial court on the point of delay by urging that delay in launching prosecution is not fatal in the present case and in support of his submission has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that even CFL has found the sample to be fit for analysis and hence opined the same to be adulterated, however, he is unable to draw a distinction between the decision rendered by the Court in State (Delhi Administration) v. Ram Singh & Ors., reported at 2009 (1) FAC 371, and the facts of the present case. Admittedly, in the present case, the Public Analyst‟s report has adjudged the sample as deficient in „milk solid not CRL.L.P.No.696/2013 Page 6 of 7 fat‟, whereas the CFL has found the same to be deficient with respect to milk fat. Hence, both the reports are totally divergent.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 77 - Full Document

Kanshi Ram Jagan Nath And Others vs The State on 28 July, 1961

10. Having regard to the facts of this case, the same is fully covered by the decision rendered in Kanshi Nath v. State, reported at 2005 (2) FAC 219 Delhi High Court; State v. Mahender Kumar & Ors., reported at 2008 (1) FAC 177; State (Delhi Administration) (supra) wherein it has been held that if on comparison of the reports of Public Analyst and CFL unacceptable variations are found, then it cannot be said that the samples were representative and consequently the accused would be entitle to an acquittal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 566 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan And Ors. vs Mahender Kumar Thanvi on 2 March, 1998

10. Having regard to the facts of this case, the same is fully covered by the decision rendered in Kanshi Nath v. State, reported at 2005 (2) FAC 219 Delhi High Court; State v. Mahender Kumar & Ors., reported at 2008 (1) FAC 177; State (Delhi Administration) (supra) wherein it has been held that if on comparison of the reports of Public Analyst and CFL unacceptable variations are found, then it cannot be said that the samples were representative and consequently the accused would be entitle to an acquittal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 130 - Full Document
1