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

1976 Supreme(All) 322

G.D.SRIVASTAVA
Abdul Moid – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


G. D. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THE applicants in this revision are Abdul Moid, Abdul Majeed, Mohd. Amin and Mohd. Fareed, Messrs. Button House is also one of the applicants. It appears that this firm is an unnecessary party, simply because there is no order of conviction against the firm. The admitted facts of the case are that a firm known as Messrs Button House used to carry on the business of selling certain drugs and other articles in the locality known as Hazratganj in the city of Lucknow. The partners in this firm are Abdul Moid, Abdul Majeed Mohd. Saeed and Mohd. Amin. On 12-8-1971, the Drug Inspector purchased a drag named Boroline from the said business premises for a sum of Rs. 1. 50 and obtained a cash memo. The Inspector again visited the firm on 20-81971 and seized the remaining stock of the said drug which was being exhibited for sale and stock in the premises of the said firm. It is alleged that the said firm did not possess any licence to sell, stock or exhibit for sale the drug named as Boroline and it was also alleged that the price charged for the drug was in excess of the maximum retail price. A complaint was filed by the Drug Inspector on 20-3-1972 before the City









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