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

1986 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 1

KERALA HIGH COURT
Bharat Bhushan, J
Food Inspector – Appellant
Versus
None – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellant: None stated
For the Respondents: None stated

1. This food adulteration case detected on 28-11-1977 even now awaits its final disposal. According to the advocate, who represented the complainant - Food Inspector before me, it was the wealth and influence of the accused which caused all the delays in bringing the offender to justice. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been enacted in the discharge of the governmental duty of eradicating adulteration in food materials, which is a menace to public health and welfare. But what we are noticing is alarming increase of the menace. Adulteration is becoming the rule at the hands of rich and influential manufacturers; distributors and dealers who do not care much for the health of the nation in their anxiety to enrich themselves by hook or crook. Without efficient and incorruptible machineries for detection, analysis and prosecution, it is impossible to have an effective tackling of the menace. Big manufacturers, distributors and dealers invariably escape the notice of those who are responsible for detection. Generally they proceed only against small retailers and petty traders. Random cases of big guns being caught generally end in acquittal with the blessings of those who are r































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