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

1930 Supreme(All) 31

DALAL
Banarsi Das – Appellant
Versus
Emperor – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Dalal, J. - This application must succeed on both the grounds raised on behalf of the applicant. The applicant has been convicted of an offence u/s 4, United Provinces Prevention of Adulteration Act 6 of 1912(Local). There is a mandatory injunction in Section 15(2) of the Act that every summons issued in a prosecution u/s 4 and Section 10 shall specify particulars of the offence charged and the name of the prosecutor besides other information. In the summons no particulars were given; nor was the name of the prosecutor given. The particulars were essential in this case because even now I have not understood the exact reason or rather the exact charge on which the applicant has been convicted. If the particulars had been stated in the charge a Court of revision would have had an opportunity to test the particulars and discover whether they amounted to an offence u/s 4. What the learned Judge says I am afraid I am unable to understand. What happened in this case was that, according to the Magistrate, 21 canisters of ghee were found in a store-room of the applicant who sells ghee ordinarily as his business. The trial has been so perfunctory that I cannot discover whether every

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