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

1984 Supreme(SC) 296

O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY, V.KHALID
Tulsi Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
ASHOK MAHAJAN, S.K.Gambhir, SUNITA KRIPLANI

Judgment

O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. :- On 17-8-1979 the Food Inspector, Sorar, purchased 375 grams of Soyabean oil from the shop of the petitioner, Tulsiram. The Soyabean oil purchased was divided into three parts; each part was filled in a bottle; each bottle was sealed; and, one of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, Raipur for analysis The Public Analyst found that the sample was adulterated as it contained traces of cotton seed oil. On 29-11-1979 a complaint was filed on the basis of the, report of the Public Analyst, in the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Balod. On 17-12-1979 a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was forwarded to the petitioner as required by Rule 9-A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The accused-petitioner however made no application to the trial Court to have one of the samples sent to the Central Food Laboratory for further analysis. He was content merely to deny offence. After due trial he was convicted by the Magistrate on 8-9-1982, under S. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The appeal preferred by the petitioner

































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