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

1978 Supreme(AP) 17

A.GANGADHARA RAO
Chunduri Gopalkrishna Murthy – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


A. GANGADHARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) IN this case the petitioner had been convicted for an offence under Sec. 16 (I-A) read with Section 7 and 2 (i-a) and (j) of the PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 as amended by Act 34 of 1976 and was sentenced for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 9 months. The petitioner is having a fancy goods shop at Repalle. On 31-12 76. the Food Inspector of Repalle Municipality went to the petitioners shop and purchased 1500 grams of sweet peppermints by paying him Rs. 9/ -. The sample was sent to the Analyst. He gave his opinion that the sweets contained Rhodamin B. a coal tar dye the use of which is prohibited. The defence of the accused is that he had purchased the peppermint packets in polythene packets of one K. G. each from one Srinivasa Confectionery a manufacturer of tenali, and he sold the same packets to the Food Inspector. To evidence his purchase, he had produced the cash bill, Ex. D. 1 dated 20-11-1976. The accused examined himself as D. W. 2. The learned judge believed his version that he had purchased the peppermints from Srinivasa Confectionery, Tenali, under the cash bill Ex. D.




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