REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

FOOD INSPECTOR, PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY Appellant

V/S

K.HARIKUMAR Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. SHIV SHANKER [REFERRED TO]
PYARALI K TEJANI VS. MAHADEO RAMCHANDRA DANGE [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. KACHEROO MAL [REFERRED TO]
MURLIDHAR MEGHRAJ LOYA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. ALASSERRY MOHAMMED:SHANTI LAL KALIDAS GUJARATI:HANS RAJ [REFERRED TO]
RAMDAS BHIKAJI CHATJDHARI VS. SADANAND [REFERRED TO]
DALCHAND VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BHOPAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. DEVINDER KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
TULSIRAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAJKARAN [REFERRED TO]
DINESHCHANDRA JAMNADAS GANDHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
FOOD INSPECTOR COCHIN CORPORATION VS. K M ALIKUNJU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI VASUDEVAN NAIR [REFERRED TO]
FOOD INSPECTOR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. SECRETARY KSHEERAVYAVASAYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY [REFERRED TO]
FOOD INSPECTOR CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY VS. PRABHAKARAN [REFERRED TO]
F I PALGHAT MUNICIPALITY VS. KARINGARAPPULLY CO OP MILK SUPPLY SOCIETY LTD [REFERRED TO]
FOOD INSPECTOR VS. VARGHESE [REFERRED TO]
FOOD INSPECTOR VS. V VELAYUDHAN [REFERRED TO]
E V KUNHAMU VS. FOOD INSPECTOR CANNANORE MUNICIPALITY [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal against acquittal came up for hearing again when the judgment of conviction and sentence under S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was set aside in a petition filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the appeal re-opened.

(2.) Sample is curd, which the respondent exposed for sale in his hotel and sold to PW.2 Food Inspector on demand without specifying whether it is from milk of cow or buffalo. Rules require it to be treated as curd from milk of buffalo. Ext. P1 report issued by PW. 1 Public Analyst shows it to be substandard going by the standard of curd from milk of cow or buffalo. It also contained not less than 31% of added water. Sale and adulterated nature of the sample were found by the Magistrate. Those aspects were not challenged before me.

(3.) Curd was exposed for sale in the hotel in cups. PW.2 purchased 6 cups of curd. In the box, he said that the entire quantity purchased was poured into a larger vessel brought by him using an ounce glass and then it was churned and mixed before being sampled in three clean and dry vessels. Magistrate is of the opinion that this is insufficient. She said that the entire quantity of curd exposed for sale in the hotel had to be churned and mixed together and the purchase ought to have been after doing so in order to make what is purchased homogeneous. Omission to do so was the sole ground of acquittal.

Click here to view full judgment.

FOOD INSPECTOR PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY Vs. K HARIKUMAR

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address