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

1968 Supreme(All) 25

C.B.CAPOOR, D.P.UNIYAL
Shyam Lal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates:
T.N. Sinha and Sri Raghunath Prasad, for Applicant; Govt. Advocate for Opposite Party.

Judgement

UNIYAL, J. :-This case has been referred to a larger Bench by a learned Single Judge. The question involved is one relating to the effect on pending proceeding of an amending Act which gives discretion to the Court in imposing a lesser punishment than that prescribed in the original Act.

2. The applicant had a tea stall and he used to store milk for the purpose of making tea which he sewed to his customers. The Food Inspector purchased a sample of milk from him which was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst. He was prosecuted under Section 7(f) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act 37 of 1954), hereinafter referred to as the 'Principal Act' Since the offence alleged to have been committed by him was a second offence, he rendered himself liable to imprisonment for a term extending to two years and with fine but which punishment could not be less than one year together with fine of not less than Rs. 2,000 as laid down in Section 16(i)(ii) of the Principal Act.

3. The offence charged had been committed on 28-9-1964 and the applicant was convicted and sentenced on 4-8-1965 to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000,







































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