Back
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Nalin Chandra Das S/o Shri Deben Chandra Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
1. Heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Neog, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. These two criminal revision petitions are taken up together for its final disposal.
2. The present applications under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. are filed assailing impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup in CR case No. 1442/1996 convicting the accused petitioners under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentencing the petitioner No. 1, accused company to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and the other accused persons to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months. The further challenge is impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 1, Kamrup in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 46/2003 dismissing the appeals and upholding and affirming the judgment and order dated 21.07.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
The failure to comply with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, vitiates the trial and denies the accused a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence against them.
Criminal liability for food adulteration requires evidence of intent; marginal deviations due to natural causes do not justify conviction or prosecution.
Food Inspector having taken steps to proceed against distiller, accused is entitled to take defence provided by Section 19(2) (b). It is not case of prosecution that accused did not properly store fo....
Mere dispatch of report of Public Analyst to accused is not a sufficient compliance with requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of PFA Act, 1954 and report must be served on accused.
Directors can be held vicariously liable for company offenses under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act if they are responsible for the company's conduct, and delays in prosecution do not automat....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that statutory provisions must be strictly interpreted, and non-compliance with procedural requirements may not necessarily invalidate the prosecut....
The court reaffirmed that non-compliance with statutory provisions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act can lead to acquittal, emphasizing the accused's rights to challenge the prosecution's....
The petitioner's failure to avail the opportunity to get the second sample analyzed from the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, rendered his....
The court confirmed the conviction based on compliance with food safety regulations, determining specific procedural requirements were mandatory, while others were directory, influencing the admissib....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
