Back
V SRINIVAS
Syed Ghan Saida, Prakasam District – Appellant
Versus
State of A P Rep By Food Inspector Prakasam Dt Rep By PP – Respondent
ORDER :
V SRINIVAS, J.
Assailing the judgment dated 01.11.2010 in Crl.A.No.56 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge at Ongole, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the judgment dated 14.05.2009 in C.C.No.139 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Parchur, for the charge under Section 7(i) and 2(ia)(i) punishable under Section 16(1-A)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the “PFA Act”), the petitioners/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”).
2. The revision case was admitted on 11.11.2010 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3079 of 2010.
3. The shorn of prosecution case is that:
Compliance with mandatory provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is essential for a valid prosecution; failure to do so results in acquittal.
Mandatory compliance with procedural rules in food adulteration cases is essential for a valid conviction; failure to adhere to these rules undermines the prosecution's case.
Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is essential for sustaining a conviction.
Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is essential for sustaining a conviction.
Testing the sample in a laboratory defined under Section 23(1-A)(ee) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is essential for a successful prosecution.
Criminal liability for food adulteration requires evidence of intent; marginal deviations due to natural causes do not justify conviction or prosecution.
The court established that non-compliance with the procedural requirements of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act invalidates a conviction, emphasizing the importance of independent witness testi....
Proper sampling procedures under Section 11 of the Act are vital for establishing food adulteration.
The court ruled that reports from non-specified laboratories under the PFA Act render prosecutions unsustainable.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
