Back
RAI CHATTOPADHYAY
Jhuma Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
1. In this revision, the revisionists have challenged the judgment and order dated September 19, 2014, of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bench-II, City Sessions Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta, delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2013. In the said appeal the judgment and order dated July 31, 2013, of the Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, 3rd Court at Calcutta, in Case No. 14D of 2009, was challenged. The present revisionists have been held convicted and were sentenced by the Magistrate for an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. They were directed to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which they were to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of ten days. The Magistrate’s order as above, has been affirmed and upheld by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, in the impugned judgment, as mentioned above.
2. This revisional Court is required to adjudicate regarding the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and sentence, imposed upon the present revisionists, initially by the Magistrate and later on affirmed by t
The defence of bona fide purchasers under Section 19 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is available only if the accused proves that they purchased the adulterated food from a duly....
Revisional jurisdiction limited; no re-appreciation of evidence absent perversity in concurrent findings. Refusal to provide food sample with threats constitutes prevention under PFA; person present ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the prescribed standards and procedural requirements under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the ....
When evidence from different laboratories on food adulteration conflicts, prosecution cannot proceed without clear, reliable evidence; inconsistencies create reasonable doubt for acquittal.
The main legal point established is the application of legal provisions related to evidence, presumption, and the applicability of amended laws to the case.
The court found that no individual liability could be established against partners of a firm without evidence showing their control over business operations, and proceedings initiated under a repeale....
The court emphasized the compliance with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the Rules, and discussed the applicability of the FSS Act, highlighting the imposition of....
Conviction upheld for selling adulterated food, emphasizing mandatory health standards and procedural compliance in food safety regulations.
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
