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

1954 Supreme(All) 260

ROY
Chittar Mal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Roy, J. - A reference has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Mathura recommending that the conviction of Chittarmal u/s 4 of the U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act (No. VI of 1912) be set aside and the fine of Rs. 150 imposed upon him by the learned Magistrate of Mathura be refunded to him.

2. Chittarmal runs a shop at Farrah. The provisions of the U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act (No. VI of 1912) have been extended in respect of all articles of food to the town of Farrah u/s 1, Sub-Sex. (2) and (3) of the said Act by Notification No 8/XVI (B.H.) 245 published in the U.P. Gazette, dated the 26th of January, 1946, Part I, page 36. The shop of Chittarmal was raided by Sanitary Inspector Kuber Singh on the 27th of June, 1952. Chittarmal bad exposed for sale catechu or katha at his shop. Kuber Singh demanded a sample of katha on payment of price. He paid the price and obtained the katha on the basis of a receipt Ex. P-3. The katha was sampled out into three parts, one part was given to Chittarmal, the other part was sent to the Chemical Analyst, and the third part was retained by the Sanitary Inspector and submitted to the Medical Officer of Health. All th

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