B.N.NIGAM, S.D.SINGH
NAGAR MAHAPALIKA – Appellant
Versus
AFAQ HUSAIN ALTAF HUSAIN – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS appeal and criminal appeal No. 547 of 1961, raise the same question of law and were, therefore, heard together. Both the appeals have been filed by Nagar Mahapalika of the City of lucknow. The Food Inspector obtained samples of ghee from two shops, one that of Afaq husain on 13th December, 1957, and the other from the shop of Durga Prasad Ganga Ram, which was owned by Gangs Ram, on 1st October, 1951. At Afaq Hussains shop the ghee was sold to the Food Inspector by his sales man, Sarfaraz Husain, and at the shop of Durga Prasad ganga Ram by Matu Ram. These samples were sealed in three separate bottles in each case and one bottle was handed over to the person from whom the ghee was purchased. Notice in Form VI was prepared by the Food Inspector under Clause (a) of Subsection (1) of Section 11 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, XXXVII of 1954. At Afaq Husains shop the notice was addressed to Afaq Husain but was handed over to Sarfaraz Husain, who made an endorsement thereon that six chhataks of ghee was sold by him to the Food Inspector, that it was sealed in three empty and clean phials in his presence and that of the witnesses, and that he receive
REFERRED TO : City Corporation of Trivandrum v. Arunachalam Reddiar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.