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

1957 Supreme(AP) 174

MANOHAR PERSHAD
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR – Appellant
Versus
SAMUDRALA SATYANARAYANA – Respondent


Judgement:-

Manohar Prasad, J.

[1] This is an appeal on behalf of the State against the order of acquittal passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nuzvid.

[2] The facts which give rise to this appeal are : The respondent is a resident of Nuzvid and was running a grocery shop in D. No. 4/178. On 21-3-.1956. at about 4-30 p.m. the Sanitary Inspector along with the Sanitary Mistry inspected the shop of the accused and found turmeric powder in a tin which was intended for sale. The Sanitary Inspector purchased a sample of it for Re. 0-1-9 and obtained a receipt, Ex. P-l. He divided_ the sample in equal parts and sealed the stuff in three bottles. He gave one bottle to the respondent and sent one sample bottle to the Government analyst and the third to the Court. The Government analyst certified that the sample was adulterated with 25 parts of foreign adulterant and that it also contained 12 parts of lead to a million parts.

The Sanitary Inspector seized the remaining quantity of the termeric powder in the tin and sealed' it in a gunny bag. The respondent was charge-sheeted under Section 16(1) read with Section 7 and Section 2(ix)(a) and Rule 44(h) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration




















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