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

1985 Supreme(Guj) 159

A.P.RAVANI
DAHYABHAI SHANABHAI RATHOD – Appellant
Versus
RAMCHANDRA SAKALCHAND PATEL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: J.S.ADHVARYU, NITIN AMIN, T.R.MISHRA

A. P. RAVANI, J.

( 1 ) IN food adulteration cases why impose sentence less than the minimum prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ? Why this misplaced sympathy ? While answering the aforesaid question it is also necessary to resolve the problem as to whether the Judge or Bench of Judges issuing show cause notice for enhancement of the sentence should or should not hear the same ?

( 2 ) THE questions arise in the backdrop of the facts that follow: the petitioner is the original accused of Criminal Case No. 87 of 1982 of the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Court No. VI) Ahmedabad. It was alleged that he sold cow-milk to one Mr. R. S. Patel Food Inspector of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 24/06/1982 The said sample of milk was collected by the Food Inspector in the presence of panchas and necessary formalities regarding dividing the sample packing and sealing the sample were also done in presence of panchas. The sample was sent for analysis to the public analyst who on analysis found that there was fat deficiency in the milk and 40 of the additional water was detected. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations the complaint was filed against the petition





















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