Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Kollipalli Srinivasa Raju, S/o Hanumantha Raju – Appellant
Versus
State Of AP., Rep By Its PP Hyd., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad – Respondent
ORDER :
(Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.)
The Revision has been preferred under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C ’) against the judgment dated 01.03.2012 in Crl.A.No.204 of 2010 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division at Ongole, whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 20.10.2010 in C.C.No.235 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, finding the revisionist guilty for the contravention under Section 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘PFA Act’) read with Sub rule 28 Rule 49 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (‘the PFA Rules’) for the offences punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of ‘the PFA Act’ and convicted the revisionist under Section 255 (2) of ‘the Cr.P.C .,’ and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Sri Akurathi Ramakrishna, the learned counsel for the
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and undue delays can justify leniency in sentencing, even when evidence supports conviction.
Criminal liability for food adulteration requires evidence of intent; marginal deviations due to natural causes do not justify conviction or prosecution.
The court ruled that reports from non-specified laboratories under the PFA Act render prosecutions unsustainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that statutory provisions must be strictly interpreted, and non-compliance with procedural requirements may not necessarily invalidate the prosecut....
Food Inspector having taken steps to proceed against distiller, accused is entitled to take defence provided by Section 19(2) (b). It is not case of prosecution that accused did not properly store fo....
Compliance with procedural requirements in food adulteration cases is directory, not mandatory; failure does not invalidate prosecution without proven prejudice.
Compliance with mandatory sampling protocols is crucial under food safety laws; lapses in procedure undermine prosecution's burden of proof, potentially leading to acquittal.
The court confirmed the conviction under the A.P. Excise Act, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and procedural adherence in the criminal justice process.
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
