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

1986 Supreme(Ori) 187

K.P.MOHAPATRA
RAMA CHANDRA SAHU – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.K.DAS GUPTA, U.C.Panda

K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.


( 1 ) THE order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, 'the Act') is under challenge.

( 2 ) SHORN of unnecessary details the prosecution case stated in brief is that the petitioner owns a grocery shop at Kalingia in Phulbani district. On 18-2-1978, Food Inspector, Phulbani (P. W. 2) inspected the grocery shop and suspected common salt exposed for sale for human consumption to be adulterated. Therefore, he made statutory purchase of 750 grams of that commodity on payment of price and after observance of the formalities according to rules, divided the same into three equal parts and kept each part separately in dry clean bottles, sealed and labelled them and sent one of the samples for examination by the public analyst. The public analyst reported in his report (Ext. 5) that the sample of common salt was adulterated. After obtaining the consent of the Chief District Medical Officer, Phulbani, prosecution was launched against the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE plea of the petitioner was a denial of the entire episode con
















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