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

1969 Supreme(Guj) 28

A.S.SARELA
BABUBHAI HARGOVINDDAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: G.M.VIDYARTHI, H.K.THAKORE, MAHESH C.BHATT

A. S. SARELA, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant has been convicted by the City Magistrate 6 Court Ahmedabad of an offence under sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) read with sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (herein after referred to as the Adulteration Act) for having sold adulterated cows milk and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. In appeal against that conviction to this Court several points of law have been raised which were not raised in the lower Court. Similar points of law have been raised in similar appeals by other accused persons pending before this Court in respect of cases of adulteration under the Adulteration Act. Therefore some of the advocates appearing in those cases who desired to intervene have also been heard on these points.

( 2 ) THE facts of this case which were broadly representative of the facts in other cases also so far as the points of law reised are concerned may be stated in brief. On 2-12-1965 at about 8 A. M. at Ahmedabad the Food Inspector Mangulal C. Mehta who is the complainant in this case went to the s






























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