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

2003 Supreme(SC) 658

RAJESH KUMAR, ARUN KUMAR
HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. – Appellant
Versus
FOOD INSPECTOR – Respondent


ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

3. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL, BY SPECIAL LEAVE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT REJECTING PETITIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANTS 9 FOR QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS IN ST NO. 2412 OF 1999, PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS, ALWAYE.

4. THE PROCEEDINGS, IT APPEARS, WERE INITIATED ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE FOOD INSPECTOR, EDAPALLY CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, UNDER SECTIONS 2(I-A)(A) AND (M), 7(1) AND 16(1)(A)(I) AND SECTION 17(1) OF THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 READ WITH RULE 5 OF THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION RULES. THE FACTS WHICH GIVE RISE TO THIS CASE ARE THAT ON 18-12-1998, SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED FROM A GROCERY SHOP "A.K. STORES" IN THRIKKAKARA PANCHAYAT. AFTER ISSUING FORM VI AND GOING THROUGH THE FORMALITIES, TWO PACKETS WHICH HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED IN THE MAHAZAR AS THAT OF A SKIMMED MILK POWDER (MILKANA) WERE PROCURED BY THE FOOD INSPECTOR FOR ANALYSIS. THE RECOVERY MEMO FURTHER INDICATES THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ARTICLES AS PER DECLARATION ON THE PACKING AS "MILKANA ANIK INSTANT DAIRY WHITENER: INGREDIENTS: PARTLY SKIMMED MILK POWDER, SUCROSE A





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