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

1959 Supreme(AP) 32

SANJEEVA ROW NAIDU
Public Prosecutor – Appellant
Versus
Kuppam Satyanarayana – Respondent


SANJEEVA ROW NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) THESE seven Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgments of the Judicial First Class Magistrate of Proddatur, before whom prosecutions had been instituted under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Central Act 37 of 1954), (which is hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of offences committed under Section 16 (1) of the said Act, separately in each case.

( 2 ) I shall briefly state only such facts as are necessary for the disposal of this matter in the view I have taken which is indicated below. The various accused in these prosecutions are dealers in foodgrains and importers of the food commodity known as Agra Toor Dhall. The Sanitary Inspector of the Municipality (who is also designated as Food Inspector by G. O. No. 1621 dated 29-9-1956) purchased two annas worth of dhall in each, split them into three shares, put them in three separate bottles, sealed them, delivered one to the accused in each case, sent one to the Public Analyst for analysis purposes and sent one bottle to the Magistrates Court. The Public Analyst who carried out the analysis of the grain came to the conclusion that they contained artificial water so








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