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

1985 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 67

KERALA HIGH COURT
, J
FOOD INSPECTOR v. USMAN


Table of Content
1. prosecution for food adulteration based on inspector's findings. (Para 1 , 2)
2. legislation aims to protect public health against adulteration. (Para 7 , 10)
3. importance of compliance in procedural rules for food analysis. (Para 14 , 16)
4. conviction and sentencing for violations established. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)

1 Appellant is the Food Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality. He prosecuted the two respondents before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Tellicherry in S.T.C. No. 139/79 for possession and sale of adulterated pan supari punishable under S.16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) read with S.7(i) and (v) and 2(1a)(a) and (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules made thereunder as amended. First accused is the vendor and second accused was impleaded as the warrantor. Trial Court acquitted both of them. Hence this appeal.

2. Pw. l is an independent witness, who was present at the time of purchase and sampling. pw. 2 is the peon of the Food Inspector and pw.3 is the Food Inspector himself. Exts. P1 to P20 are the documents proved by pw.3. His evidence is supported by the depositions of Pws. 1 and 2. On the question of purchase, sampling and observan









































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