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

2000 Supreme(Guj) 404

Y.B.BHATT
GOPISHANKAR S. – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.D.SHAH, B.M.MANGUKIYA, K.P.RAVAL

Y. B. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) ). THIS is an application under Sec. 482 of the Criminal procedure Code at the instance of the original accused Nos. 4 to 7 for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4498 of 1998, initiated under the complaint of respondent No. 2-original complainant who is the Food Inspector, Western railway, Ahmedabad.

( 2 ) THE said complainant filed a complaint in respect of offences punishable under Sec. 7 (ii) read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1954, in respect of a food item produced by the Limited Company (accusedno. 8)

( 3 ) ). The contentions raised in the present application are two-fold, and therefore, it would be simpler to deal with applicant Nos. 1 and 2 (accused nos. 4 and 5) on the one hand and applicant Nos. 3 and 4 (accused Nos. 6 and 7) on the other.

( 4 ) ). So far as the applicant Nos. 3 and 4 (accused Nos. 6 and 7) are concerned, the complainant refers to them in the complaint as "partners". It is well established that the accused No. 8 which is the manufacturer of the food item in question is a public limited company, and that there cannot be any partners in a public limited company. Even if we assume that the complainan








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