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

1964 Supreme(Mad) 126

RAMAKRISHNAN
Public Prosecutor – Appellant
Versus
Palanisami Nadar – Respondent


Advocates:
V.V. Radhakrishnan, for Appellant; V. Shanmugham, for Respondent.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- This appeal is filed by the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State of Madras, against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in C. A. 36 of 1962. The accused, a grocery merchant in Tuticorin, was convicted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tuticorin, under S. 7, S. 16(1)(a) read with S. 7(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Section 7(v) states that no person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute any adulterated food. Section 16(1)(a) states that if any person, whether by himself or by any person on his behalf, sells or distributes, any articles of food in contravention or any of the provisions of the Act, he shall be punished.

2. The facts in case lie within a narrow compass. P.W. 1, the Sanitary Inspector of the Tuticorin Municipality, who is also the food inspector under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, went to the shop of the accused on 30-09-1961 and purchased 3/4 lb of compounded asafoetida for the purpose of analysis. P.W. 2 was present at that time. As usual, the samples were divided into three parts and there is no dispute that the prescribed formaliti




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