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

1989 Supreme(Ori) 21

K.P.MOHAPATRA
BIJAYA KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.P.Dhal, D.P.SAHU, P.K.DHAL

K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.


( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner was a dealer of grocery articles of Dharamsala Market of Keonjhar town. On 23-1-1980 at 12-30 P. M. the Food Inspector (P. W. 2) inspected the grocery shop and suspected that turmeric whole kept inside the shop was moth-eaten and unfit for human consumption. Accordingly, he purchased 600 grams of turmeric whole and after compliance with the rules, the samples were kept in clean and dry bottles in equal parts and subsequently one of them was sent to the Public Analyst for opinion. The Public Analyst reported in his report (Ext. 4) to the effect that the sample of turmeric whole was damaged by insects and was adulterated in view of the provision of S. 2 (ia) (m) of the Act. After receipt of the report, it was found that there was a prima facie case of food adulteration against the petitioner and after obtaining the sanction for prosecution Ext. 5 from the Authorised Officer, the Chief District Medical Officer, prosecution report was submitted in court.

( 3 ) THE petitioner









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