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

1988 Supreme(Ker) 265

THOMAS
FOOD INSPECTOR – Appellant
Versus
MOIDOO – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. "New Mahe" is the name of a Panchayat comprising areas which once formed portions of two other Panchayats (Chokli and Kodiyeri). New Mahe was formed in 1982. The accused in this case is conducting a cool bar at New Mahe. On 14-1-1983, a food inspector (appointed by Government in 1978 for the local area called "Tellicherry Circle" consisting of a few Panchayats including Chokli and Kodiyeri) took sample of ice candy, from the cool bar of the accused. The sample was found to be adulterated on analysis. Accused was convicted for the offence under S.16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The Sessions Judge, in appeal, took the view that the sampling is unsupportable in law since the food inspector who took the sample was not appointed to exercise powers in the New Mahe Panchayat. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were set aside. Hence this appeal.

2. The food inspector (Pw.1) purchased 750 grams, of ice candy from the accused. Form VI notice was given to him intimating that the sample would be sent for analysis. A cash receipt was issued










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