BALLDBHDAS AGARWALA Vs. J C CHAKRAVARTY
LAWS(SC)-1960-1-6
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on January 15,1960

BALLDBHDAS AGARWALA Appellant
VERSUS
J.C.CHAKRAVARTY Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. JAGDISH LAL [LAWS(DLH)-1965-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE VS. ROOP DASS [LAWS(DLH)-1968-4-8] [RERERRED TO]
HARNAM SINGH VS. BHAGWAN SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-1991-2-75] [REFERRED]
SARBJIT SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(DLH)-1992-12-8] [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. SUNIL SABHARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-1995-3-103] [REFERRED TO]
MANILAL MAGANLAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1964-11-9] [REFERRED]
BABUBHAI HARGOVINDDAS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1969-4-5] [REFERRED]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. DHIRAJLAL AMRATLAL KANSARA [LAWS(GJH)-1975-6-5] [CASES REFERRED]
HIMATLAL DURGAPRASAD VS. J M AVLANI OCTROI OFFICER RAJKOT [LAWS(GJH)-1975-7-1] [REFERRED]
THAKUR MADAN PAL SINGH VS. TAHSILDAR [LAWS(ALL)-1981-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
D MADHAVA REDDY VS. COLLECTOR CO OPERATION [LAWS(APH)-1999-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA VS. BIVABATI BASU [LAWS(CAL)-1968-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
NARASIMHA GOVIND KAMAT VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-1971-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
RAM AWATAR AGRWAL VS. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-1982-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(DLH)-1980-10-15] [REFERRED]
PATEL TALKIES VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1991-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AHMEDABAD VS. ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1994-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
RAJMOHINI JHAMB VS. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-1988-3-5] [FOLLOWED ON]
M PADMANABHAN VS. APPUKUTTAN NAIR [LAWS(KER)-1973-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
DAHYALAL AND COMPANY VS. CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-1995-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
MYSORE CEMENTS LTD VS. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER [LAWS(KAR)-2002-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD VS. JANARDHAN SINGH [LAWS(CAL)-2001-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAV SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2006-9-50] [REFERRED TO]
CREDENTIAL FINANCE LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1998-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. BHOORAJI [LAWS(SC)-2001-8-75] [REFERRED]
CHITTIVALASA JUTE MILLS LTD VS. STATE OF AP DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(APH)-2010-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. S S P YADAV [LAWS(APH)-2010-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
BEYOND BASIKS INFOTECH PVT LTD VS. STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME GENERAL-A DEPARTMENT A P SECRETARIAT HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2012-2-54] [REFERRED TO]
AJAYAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2011-8-111] [REFERRED TO]
M S SHOES EAST LTD VS. MODELLA KNITWEAR LTD [LAWS(P&H)-1998-3-25] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1989-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
HEERA LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
VAMAN NARAYAN GHIYA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORP. OF AHMEDABAD VS. ORIENTAL FIRE & GIC LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-1994-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP SHRIVASTAVA VS. PRATIBHA GOYAL [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-72] [REFERRED TO]
Durga Prasad VS. Nagar Palika Nigam [LAWS(MPH)-1960-8-48] [REFERRED TO]
Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., through authorized representative, Mr. Manoj Puroshottam Paradkar VS. Lisa Apparels Pvt. Ltd., r/by its Managing Director Mr. R. Subrahmanyam Iyer, Mr. R. Subrahmanyam Iyer S/o V. Ragavan Iyer and [LAWS(KAR)-2010-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
Canara Workshops Limited VS. Shri Mantesh [LAWS(KAR)-2013-9-262] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2013-7-272] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL HALWAI VS. R. GUJRAL, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, M.C.D. [LAWS(DLH)-1970-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS. SHAW WALLACE AND CO. LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-1999-6-35] [REFERRED TO]
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2018-8-84] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The appellant Ballavdas Agarwalla was the proprietor of a restaurant in the Railway premises at Howrah Railway Station within the Municipality of Howrah, and his servant Shyamlal Missir was in charge of that restaurant. Under an agreement with the Railway authorities, the appellant had taken out a vendor's license dated January 9, 1952, by which he was permitted to sell or exhibit for sale sweetmeats, betel, bidi, cigarettes etc., but not specifically including butter, at the Howrah goods shed. On December 2, 1953, during the currency of the license, the Health Officer of the Howrah Municipality along with his Santiary Inspector and a peon visited the establishment and found that butter was being sold from glass jars standing on a table between the customers and the vendor. The appellant was then absent, and Shyamlal was dealing with the customers. The Sanitary Inspector then took three samples from an one-pound slab of butter which was taken out of a glass jar that was fully exposed to public view and which stood open on the selling counter. The samples were taken in clean bottles, sealed and labelled on the spot under a seizure list which Shyamlal signed. A sum of Rs. 2 was also given to Shyamlal as the price of the sample butter. One of the samples was later sent to the Health Department of the Government of West Bengal for analysis and report. The Public Analyst of West Bengal sent a report stating that the butter in question was grossly adulterated and did not contain any butter fat, and also contained a large excess of water. On January 2, 1954, the Sanitary Inspector filed a complaint before the magistrate of Howrah asking for the issue of summons to the appellant and his servant Shyamlal for an offence under sections 488 406 and 407 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, as extended to the Municipality of Howrah. The complaint was signed in token of sanction by the Health Officer of the Municipality.
(2.)On the aforesaid complaint, the appellant and his servant were put on trial. Their defence was that it was not a case of voluntary sale, nor of a sale of butter. The learned Magistrate who tried the case in the first instance held that no case of selling adulterated butter was made out, and the reason which the learned Magistrate gave for his finding was that the butter purchased by the Sanitary Inspector was not purchased from the jar from which butter was being sold to other customers. The learned Magistrate acquitted both the accused persons.
(3.)The Administrator, Howrah Municipality, then preferred an application in revision to the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court set aside the order of acquittal and ordered a retrial by another magistrate.
;


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