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

1976 Supreme(AP) 220

K.A.MUKTADAR
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A. P. , Hyd – Appellant
Versus
J. Murlidhar – Respondent


MUKTADAR, J.

( 1 ) THE Food Inspector, Circle No. 11, Municipal Corporation hyderabad, filed a complaint against the accused on 25-8-75 alleging that the accused has contravened the provisions of S. 7 read with S. 2 (1) (a) and S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (herein after referred to as the Act ). The Food Inspecfor visited the shop of the accused on 10 2-75- After complying with the formalities prescribed in the Rules framed under the Act, he purchased 375 grams of groundnut oil for Rg. 315 P. He divided the oil into three equal parts and put them in three empty, dry and clean bottles, corked them, and affixed his seal. He gave one sample to the accused, and sent another sample to the Public analyst while retaining the third with himself. The Public Analyst in his report dated 22-3-75 came to the conclusion that the sample contained about 7% of castor oil and was, therefore, adulterated. It is not known as to when exactly the report was received by the Food Inspector; but we have it in the evidence of P. W. 2 that on 19-6-75 he received the record in the case along with the Public Analyst s report which would go to show that the report of the Analyst

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