STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KAPOOR CHAND
LAWS(RAJ)-1967-1-11
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on January 24,1967

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Appellant
VERSUS
KAPOOR CHAND Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF U P VS. MAIKU BALDEO CHAMAR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. CHHOTEKHAN NANNEKHAN [LAWS(MPH)-1969-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. KHANDU BHUNIA [LAWS(CAL)-1984-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. HARI VIRUMAL KARACHIWALA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
KAYUM ALI VS. KANA [LAWS(RAJ)-1970-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
MOTIYAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1980-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. SECRETARY, C.W.C. STORES CANNANORE [LAWS(KER)-1969-10-26] [REFERRED TO]
NAGENDRA KUMAR BEHERA VS. STATE THROUGH SARAJ KUMAR PATNAIK, FOOD INSPECTOR, CUTTACK MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(ORI)-1979-5-12] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE Sub-divisional Magistrate, Salumber acquitted Kapoorchand by his judgment dated 12th March, 1965 in a case under Sections 7 and 16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The State of Rajasthan has come up in appeal against this acquittal.
(2.)THE material facts which have given rise to this appeal are: Kapoorchand is a shop keeper in village Veerpur, who sells amongst other things 'ghee' On June 19, 1963 Food Inspector Durga Shanker made a test purchase from his shop, filled in three phials out of the 'ghee' purchased by him One of these phials he handed over to the accused, and sent another to the Public Analyst According to the report from the Public Analyst dated 6th August, 1963 that sample was found to be adulterated with 'vanaspati'. After taking necessary consent from the Local authorities the accused was prosecuted for an offence under Section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(3.)THE learned Magistrate, who tried the accused found that the two Motbirs in whose presence the prosecution alleged the action of taking samples did not support the prosecution and therefore it was not proved by the prosecution that the sample which was sent to the Public Analyst was taken from the accused and thus the guilt was not brought home to the accused. He accordingly acquitted him.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.