KERALA HIGH COURT
Bharat Bhushan, J
Food Inspector – Appellant
Versus
None – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the food adulteration case involving analysis findings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. irregularity in sampling led to initial acquittal. (Para 3) |
| 3. initial acquittal overturned due to errors in prior judicial reasoning. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. discussion on mandatory vs. directory provisions of the law. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's guidance on legal standards for compliance and acquittal. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 6. concluding directives for remand and re-hearing. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
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 n
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.