Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
Sanku Nagaraju – Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. (now the State of Telangana) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioners argue legal validity of prosecution. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. respondents defend prosecution's legitimacy. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court's analysis of jurisdictional facts. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 5. conclusion and quashing of prosecution. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
ORDER :
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J.
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the writ petitioners, calling in question the sanction for prosecution accorded by the third respondent vide proceedings No.10556/F3/2004 dated 19.1.2005 and the consequential prosecution launched thereto, culminating in CC No.195 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM), Gajwel, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. The petitioners seek quahsment of the aforesaid proceedings and consequential reliefs as prayed for.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Petitioner No.1 is employed as a Stenographer in the Instant Coffee Division of M/s. Tata Coffee Ltd., formerly known as Consolidated Coffee Ltd., a Public Limited Compan
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act does not apply to food products exclusively manufactured for export, and the initiation of prosecution in such cases is invalid.
The absence of importer information on a carbonated drink label does not amount to misbranding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, especially where a valid trade agreement between In....
The court affirmed that the sale of food to a Food Inspector constitutes a defined 'sale' under the act, regardless of whether the food item is sold as such or used in preparation for another food pr....
Conviction upheld for selling adulterated food, emphasizing mandatory health standards and procedural compliance in food safety regulations.
The failure to comply with mandatory sampling procedures under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act raises reasonable doubt and undermines the prosecution's case.
Prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act does not require a prior complaint for FIR; misbranding entails legal liability under both the IPC and Food Safety Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
