Back
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Dipak Kedia @ Deepak Kedia – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal charges must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contradictory expert reports undermine the prosecution's case. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. evidence must be reliable and clear for conviction in food adulteration. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:
1. This instant Criminal Revisional application has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 397 /401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 11.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2011 thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bankura on 14.12.2010 in Complaint Case No. 138C of 2004 under Section 16 (1)A read with Section 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more.
2. The factual matrix of the instant case leading to filing of this application is as under:
2a. The petitioner was an employee of an Oil Mill owned by Mahesh Sharma, since deceased. O
When evidence from different laboratories on food adulteration conflicts, prosecution cannot proceed without clear, reliable evidence; inconsistencies create reasonable doubt for acquittal.
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 ....
The court confirmed the conviction based on compliance with food safety regulations, determining specific procedural requirements were mandatory, while others were directory, influencing the admissib....
Prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act requires a confirming report from the Referral Laboratory; divergence in findings precludes legal action.
Non-compliance with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules of 1955 can lead to the benefit of doubt for the accused, especially in cases where the prosecution f....
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....
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....
Criminal liability for food adulteration requires evidence of intent; marginal deviations due to natural causes do not justify conviction or prosecution.
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
