Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
RAVI CHIRANIA
Shankar Lal S/o Tolu Jat – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
Ravi Chirania, J.
1. By way of present criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 04.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No 17/2006 whereby the judgment dated 01.07.2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasana, District Chittorgarh in Criminal Case No 278/1996 was upheld. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1954” or “the Act” for short).
| Conviction for offence under Section | Sentences |
| Section 7 and 16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 | 6 months of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 months S.I. |
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a complaint was filed against the petitioner on 17.07.1996 stating that on 26.11.1994, Food Inspector Labh Shankar apprehended the petitioner who was carrying cow’s milk for sale. After following the requisite formalities, he purchased 750 grams of milk for Rs. 4/-. The sample was divi
Criminal liability for food adulteration requires evidence of intent; marginal deviations due to natural causes do not justify conviction or prosecution.
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.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and undue delays can justify leniency in sentencing, even when evidence supports conviction.
Mandatory compliance with procedural rules in food adulteration cases is essential for a valid conviction; failure to adhere to these rules undermines the prosecution's case.
Compliance with mandatory provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is essential for a valid prosecution; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The defence of bona fide purchasers under Section 19 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is available only if the accused proves that they purchased the adulterated food from a duly....
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 ruled that reports from non-specified laboratories under the PFA Act render prosecutions unsustainable.
Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is essential for sustaining a conviction.
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
