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

1974 Supreme(Ker) 111

K.BASKARAN, P.NARAYANA PILLAI, S.K.KADER
Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality – Appellant
Versus
Seetharam Rice & Oil Mills, Pareli – Respondent


Judgment :-

KADER, J.

These criminal appeals, revision petitions and the criminal miscellaneous petition raise certain points of great importance relating to the scope of and procedure contemplated under Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which will here-inafter be referred to, for brevity, the Act.

2. The points which fall for determination are:

(i) What is the scope of Section 20-A of the Act; and

(ii) What is the procedure to be followed in the matter of trial of a case coming under this section. In other words, does this section envisage a joint trial of the vendor along with the manufacturer. distributor or the dealer of any article of food.

3. The relevant and material facts necessary for the disposal of these criminal appeals, revisions and miscellaneous petition can be stated in a short compass :

Crl. Appeals Nos. 222, 223 and 225 to 227 of 1973 are directed against the acquittals of the vendors in these cases; the appellant in all these cases being the Food Inspector attached to the Palghat Municipality. The Food Inspector the complainant in these cases, purchased gingelly oil from the original accused in these cases, after complying with the du



































































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