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

1988 Supreme(Guj) 32

M.B.SHAH
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
KRUSHNAMORARI RAMKRUSHNA GUPTA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: K.J.VAIDYA, Y.U.MALIK

M. B. SHAH, J.

( 1 ) IN these cases it seems that either the learned Magistrate is not aware of the seriousness of the offence the law laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court in various decisions and is not mindful of the fact that under the provisions of law it was his duty to administer the law as per the dictates of the Parliament and to impose minimum sentence provided under the Act. It is high time that the lower Judiciary should realize that it is their duty to follow the law laid down by this Court in various decisions and to implement them.

( 2 ) FROM the shop owned by opponent No. 1 known as Anil Kirana Stores at Sevalia of Thasra Taluka the Food Inspector purchased a sample of turmeric powder in presence of panchas on 1-5-1984 at about 5-30 p. m. The sample was taken from packed tin. Opponent No. 1 produced a bill showing that the said turmeric powder was purchased from opponent No. 4. Opponents Nos. 2 3 and 5 are the partners of the firm-opponent No. 4. The complaint was filed on 5-2-1986. The Court issued summons to the opponents. On 8-4-1986 the opponents filed an application Ex. 9 wherein in the first line it is stated that they admit the offence which is















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