SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(SC) 193

S.K.DAS, M.HIDAYATULLAH, N.RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, S.R.DASS
State Of Bombay – Appellant
Versus
Parshottam Kanaiyalal – Respondent


Advocates:
amicus curiae, D.GUTPA, G.C.MATHUR, H.R.KHANNA

Judgment

AYYANGAR, J. : This appeal by special leave of this Court raises a very short point regarding the construction of S. 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954).

2. The respondent owned a milk shop within the Municipal limits of the city of Baroda. The Food Inspector of the Municipality visited the shop on July 9, 1956, and purchased milk for analysis. This was sent to the Public Analyst and when his report was to the effect that the sample was adulterated, the Inspector applied to the Chief Officer, Borough Municipality, Borada for the latter s consent, for instituting criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (referred to hereafter as the Act) against the respondent. A consent in writing to the initiation of this prosecution was given by the Chief Officer and thereafter the complaint out of which this appeal arises was instituted charging the respondent with an offence under S. 16 read with S. 7 of the Act for selling adulterated food.

3. The case was tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baroda. Besides denying his guilt, the accused raised various technical objections, the principal of whi























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top