Back
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Bharat Fruit Products through its partner Bharat Bhushan – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the order dated 03.03.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur and the resultant proceedings against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. It has been asserted that Food Inspector, Manjit Singh, inspected the shop of Raj Kumar-respondent No.2 on 22.08.2009 and found 30 Dibbas originally sealed each weighing 500 ml of Ghee kept for sale manufactured by Maa Vaishno Food Products Malanpur Bhind (M.P). He took a sample after serving a notice in Form VI. Three original sealed packets were sent to Public Analyst Kandaghat, who issued a report No.743 dated 30.09.2009 stating that the sample was adulterated. The report was received in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur, which was forwarded to the Food Inspector for further necessary action. The Food Inspector obtained the consent for launching the prosecution and filed a complaint in the Court of learned CJM, Hamirpur on 04.01.2010, which was assigned to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. IV for dispos
The court can quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure justice under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Summoning an accused under Section 20A requires a prima facie inquiry and legally admissibl....
An acquittal will not be disturbed unless compelling errors are evident; the presumption of innocence heavily favors the accused in such cases.
The absence of the manufacturer as an accused in food safety violations renders prosecution against the licensee untenable, violating procedural requirements of the FSS Act.
Prosecution must prove knowledge of food adulteration for liability under IPC; mere possession does not suffice for charges under Sections 273 and 420.
Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act allows for the impleading of the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer during the trial of an offence under the Act if the offence was committed ....
The court reaffirmed that non-compliance with statutory provisions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act can lead to acquittal, emphasizing the accused's rights to challenge the prosecution's....
Compliance with procedural requirements in food adulteration cases is directory, not mandatory; failure does not invalidate prosecution without proven prejudice.
A conviction for the sale of adulterated food under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is unsustainable if no specific quality standard for the relevant food article is prescribed under the Act ....
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
