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

1969 Supreme(Pat) 134

K.B.N.SINGH, ANWAR AHMAD
Daitari Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


Judgment

ANWAR AHMAD, J.

1. The petitioner was convicted under S.16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. On appeal, his conviction and sentence have been upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum.

2. The prosecution case in that the Food Inspector (P.W. 2) of the District Board of Singhbhum visited the shop of the petitioner on the 7th November 1963 along with Hari Har Bhattacharya (P.W. 1), Mata Karwa (P.W. 3) and one Abhay (not examined), purchased one and a half pao of gunja oil from the petitioner on payment of price, divided it into three equal parts, put them in three separate bottles and, after affixing labels thereof, properly packed and sealed them. One of the bottles was given to the petitioner and one was sent to the Public Analyst, who, in his report, found the sample of gunja oil highly adulterated with linseed oil.

3. The prosecution of the petitioner was started on the basis of a complaint (Ext. 7) made by P.W. 2 after obtaining the necessary sanction as required by S.20 of the Act.

4. The taking of the sample and the fact that it was found to be highly
















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