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

1985 Supreme(Ker) 199

PADMANABHAN
FOOD INSPECTOR – Appellant
Versus
SATHISH KUMAR – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The appellant (Food Inspector. Palghat Municipality) prosecuted respondents 1 and 2 in S. T. Case No. !09 of 1980 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palghat, for an offence punishable under S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for the alleged contravention of S.7(1) thereof. The sample involved is arrow root powder. Sale to the Food 1nspector was on 16-10-1980 at 10 a.m. by the 2nd respondent who was the Salesman-cum-Cashier. The purchase was from Deepa Medicals, Palghat owned by the first respondent. After duly sampling, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst and Ext P18 report was obtained which showed that what was sold as arrow root powder consisted wholly of corn-starch and as such adulterated because under clause (a) of sub-section (ia) of S.2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act an article is adulterated if what is sold by the vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be. The Magistrate acquitted both the respondents on the sole ground that they have established the defence under S.














































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