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

1988 Supreme(Ker) 261

U.L.BHAT, PAREED PILLAY
HARISANKAR – Appellant
Versus
FOOD INSPECTOR – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The trial court and the appellate court have concurrently found the revision petitioner (second accused) guilty under S.7 (i) read with S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') and R.44A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short 'the Rules'). He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The first accused was likewise convicted and sentenced by the trial court, but the same has been set aside by the appellate court. Second Accused being aggrieved has filed this revision petition.

2. The Food Inspector, Alleppey Municipality filed a complaint against the two accused, father and son, alleging that on 12-12-1977 he visited the shop of which first accused is the licensee, found second accused conducting the business in the shop and after observing the legal formalities purchased 750 grams of peas dhall but of the larger stock exhibited for sale in the premises and put each part of the sample in a polythene bag or cover and the same on analysis was found to contain 82% kesari dhall and therefore adulterated.










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