Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA
Raj Kumar Sharma, S/o Kailash Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. commonality in petitions leads to joint hearing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenges against charge maintenance under ipc. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. contention on the inapplicability of ipc charges post-revision. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 4. need for proving knowledge in food adulteration charges. (Para 7 , 9 , 12) |
| 5. interpretation of legal provisions regarding adulteration. (Para 8 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. final decision quashing previous orders. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. Cause of action and questions involved in both criminal misc. petitions are, more or less, similar, hence, with the consent of the parties, both the petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners, who are retailers and engaged in sale and purchase of pure ghee, have challenged common order dated 01.03.2013 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Srimadhopur, District Sikar (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the revisional court’) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 19/2013 and 18/2013 filed by the petitioners respectively whereby revision petitions filed by the petitioners have been partly allowed as well as order dated 27.08.2012 passed by the Court of Add
Prosecution must prove knowledge of food adulteration for liability under IPC; mere possession does not suffice for charges under Sections 273 and 420.
The main legal point established is that charges must be supported by evidence, and the absence of evidence can lead to the quashing of charges.
Criminal liability for food adulteration requires evidence of intent; marginal deviations due to natural causes do not justify conviction or prosecution.
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....
(1) Sale of adulterated food – Concept of unsafe food is more comprehensive than concept of adulterated food – By virtue of Section 89 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Section 59 will override....
The court ruled that reports from non-specified laboratories under the PFA Act render prosecutions unsustainable.
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
