Back
Next 
SHORT NOTE
PATNA HIGH COURT
Asutosh Kumar, J.
Dr. Ajaat Shatru —Petitioner
versus
The State of Bihar & Anr. —Opp. Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No.17298 of 2011
Decided on 3.9.2014
Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Gajanan Arun, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Arun kumar, Pandey, Advocate
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Gajanan Arun, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Arun kumar, Pandey, Advocate
Important Point
In absence of any categorical information in prosecution report, it is difficult for Court to sustain prosecution. The order taking cognizance does not depict application of mind. Hence, it is quashed.
Headnote:Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — Section 2(ia) (m), 2(ix)(j), (k), (e) & 16(1) A (F-1) — Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 — Rule 32(b)-(i), (vi) read with 32A & 37A — Cognizance under — Legality of — Protein food — Analyst’s report is deficient inasmuch as requisite standard of protein content of such dietary supplement has not been indicated — HELD — In absence of such categorical information in prosecution report — It would be difficult to sustain prosecution against petitioner. [Paras 3 to 7]
Result: Application allowed
**********
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
