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

1980 Supreme(Guj) 214

A.M.AHMADI, R.C.MANKAD
KAMLESHKUMAR BABULAL PATEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: G.S.ADHYARU, K.I.PATEL

R. C. MANKAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS Revision Application directed against the judgment and order dated 21/10/1978 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Ahmedabad City confirming conviction of the petitioner (original accused) under sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) read with sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing him to three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500. 00 or on default fifteen days further simple imprisonment has been referred to us as the learned Single Judge before whom it came up for hearing was of the opinion that there was conflict of views between different Division Benches of this Court on the question whether compliance with provisions of Rule 16 (d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the rules) was required to be proved by positive evidence.

( 2 ) FACTS leading to this revision application are as follows. Respon- dent No. 2 who is a Food Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation purchased 700 ml. of cows milk from the petitioner who was carrying on business of selling milk on 26/04/1977 for Rs. 1. 05 P. after giving due intimation in writing to him that the milk was pur




























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