Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ANAND SHARMA
Dharam Singh S/o Shri Khem Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 25.01.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Deeg, Bharatput, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 04.12.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, Bharatppur, for convicting the petitioner under Section 7 (i)/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act of 1954') has been dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court for convicting the petitioner under the aforesaid offences and awarding sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- has been confirmed with three months simple imprisonment in case of default.
2. It is submitted that one criminal compliant (P-14) was filed by the Food Inspector, Circle Deeg, in the Court of ACJM, Deeg, on 03.07.1996 alleging the facts that on 17.04.1996 at around 9:30 a.m., when he was going with his assistant near Goverdhan Dairy, he found that one milkman was coming with milk tank. The Food Inspector checked the milk of the milkman, on the suspicion that the milk was adulterated and collected 750 gms of milk. He prepared three samples in three separate bottles after a
The court established that non-compliance with the procedural requirements of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act invalidates a conviction, emphasizing the importance of independent witness testi....
Proper sampling procedures under Section 11 of the Act are vital for establishing food adulteration.
The failure to comply with mandatory sampling procedures under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act raises reasonable doubt and undermines the prosecution's case.
The Food Inspector failed to establish the necessary jurisdictional facts for sampling, resulting in the acquittal of the accused due to reasonable doubt.
Food Inspector having taken steps to proceed against distiller, accused is entitled to take defence provided by Section 19(2) (b). It is not case of prosecution that accused did not properly store fo....
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....
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.
Criminal liability for food adulteration requires evidence of intent; marginal deviations due to natural causes do not justify conviction or prosecution.
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
