REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

NATHOO Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BABU LAL HARGOVINDAS V/S. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
SATYENDRA NATH DUTTA AND ANOTHER V/S. RAM NARAIN [REFERRED TO]
PATHUMMA AND ANOTHER V/S. MUHAMMAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. V/S. HANIF [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V/S. RAMACHANDRAN [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR SWASTHYA ADHIKARI NAGAR MAHAPALIKA V/S. MOHAMMAD WASIM [REFERRED TO]
RAM BRIKSH SINGH AND OTHERS V/S. AMBIKA YADAV AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA DEVI V/S. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
JOHAR AND OTHERS V/S. MANDAL PRASAD AND ANOTHER. [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS V/S. RAMAYAN SINGH AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL SINGH V/S. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [REFERRED TO]
GURU BASAVARAJ @ BENNE SETTAPA V/S. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
JAMEEL V/S. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
AHMED HUSSEIN VALI MOHAMMED SAIYED AND ANOTHER V/S. STATE OF GUJRAT [REFERRED TO]
D STEPHENS VS. NOSIBOLLA [REFERRED TO]
K CHINNASWAMY REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. SARJU SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAM LABHAYA VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
DULI CHAND VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
FOOD INSPECTOR PALAKKAD VS. M V ALU [REFERRED TO]
HAZARA SINGH VS. RAJ KUMAR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. of State-respondent; and, perused the record.

(2.) The prosecution story, inter alia, is that on 11.11.1979 at about 10.00 AM the accused-revisionist, Nathoo, was found selling milk at Ardali Bazaar, Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi. There was 10 KG of milk in a container with him. Milk was checked by Chief Food Inspector, Sri J.P. Dhuria, who purchased 60 ML of Cow milk as sample on payment of Rs. 75/- after duly serving a notice in Form-6. Thereafter at the spot the milk was divided into three parts, kept in three bottles which were duly sealed. One of the sealed bottle was sent to Public Analyst for analysis and remaining two bottles of sample were kept in reserve in the office of local Health Officer. According to report of Public Analyst, sample was found adulterated. After sending a copy of the said report to the accused-revisionist and obtaining requisite sanction from Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi for instituting complaint, State filed complaint Case No. 5410 of 1984 submitting charge-sheet against the accused revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1954").

(3.) To prove the offence levelled against revisionist-accused, prosecution examined PW 1, Sri Ram Srivastava, Food Inspector; and, PW 2, Sri Rajendra Prasad, Food Clerk.

Click here to view full judgment.

NATHOO Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address