• +91-9223281789
  • sui-generis@consultant.com

Liquor – Act does not lay down any standard of liquor – The strength of alcohol in different alcoholic beverages is prescribed under the provisions of Punjab Excise Act and the rules framed thereunder – If there is any adulteration of liquor then it had to be dealt under the relevant provisions of the Excise Act. (M/s.Iqbal Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 247 (P&H)  

Liquor – Containing suspended matter settled at the bottom but no added coltar dye detected – Report of Public Analyst did not show that it has become unfit for consumption or it was injurious to heath – It cannot be said that it was adulteration – Proceedings quashed. (M/s.Iqbal Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 247 (P&H)  

Mustard oil – Presence of small quantity of tisi oil – Not adulteration. (Abdul Haleem Vs State of U.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 567 (All.)

Adulteration solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency – Adulterated food article is taken away from its purview only if article of food is primary food – Primary food means any article of food, being a product of agriculture or horticulture in its natural form. (Yousuf Vs Food Inspector) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 562 (Kerala) 

Synthetic vinegar – Marking of label as “non fruit” instead of “synthetic” does not amount to misbranding. (Achamma Vs Union of India) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 175 (Kerala)

Pan Masala, Gutka and Supari – Since eaten for taste and nourishment as such they are food within the meaning of S.2(v) of the act. (Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 530 (S.C.)

“Corriander powder” – Is different from corriander – A mechanical process is involved in converting corriander into corriander powder – Corriander powder is not primary food. (Yousuf Vs Food Inspector) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 562 (Kerala) 

Company – Directors – No specific or remote allegations against Directors which would demonstrate any aspect of consent or connivance in regard to commission of offence by the Directors nor same were even remotely attributable to any neglect on their part – Entire complaint totally silent in this regard and there was not even a whisper against the Directors so as to indicate any nexus – Allegations in complaint if accepted as such do not prima facie make out any offence under the Act – Prosecution if allowed to continue would result in abuse of process of Court – Order issuing process against Directors for vicarious liability cannot therefore be sustained. (Keki Bomi Dadiseth & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 89 (Bombay)

Company – Directors – Vicarious liability – Arises if at the material time the accused was in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of the Company or offence is committed with the consent or connivance of such person (Director) or attributable to neglect on his party – Simply because the person is a Director of the Company, it does not necessarily mean that he fulfils all the above referred requirements so as to make him liable. (Keki Bomi Dadiseth & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 89 (Bombay) 

For the purpose of conviction the essential ingredient is sale of the adulterated article to the purchaser by the vendor – Not material to establish the capacity of the person vis-a-vis the owner of the shop to prove his authority to sell the adulterated food exposed for sale – Proviso to S.2(ia)(m) is attracted only if the article of food is primary food – Corriander powder is not primary food. (Yousuf Vs Food Inspector) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 562 (Kerala) 

“Burfi” decorated with aluminium leaf – No evidence that aluminum leaf was injurious to health – Burfi cannot be said to be adulterated within meaning of S.2(ia) of the Act. (State of H.P Vs Sainu Ram) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 215 (H.P.) 

Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products Act is enacted with intention to bring out a comprehensive enactment to deal with tobacco and tobacco products  and it does not totally ban manufacture of tobacco or tobacco products – Section 6 merely prohibits sale of cigarettes and tobacco products to a person under the age of eighteen years – The Act does not bar pan masala or any chewing material having tobacco – This Act being a special Act and of later origin, overrides the provision of S.7(iv) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act with regard to power to prohibit the sale or manufacture of tobacco products which are listed in the Schedule to Act of 2003. (Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 530 (S.C.)

Milk – Sample must be homogenous and representative – Churning is one of the methods of making the sample homogenous and representative – In the absence of any evidence of churning it cannot be said that homogenous sample was taken – When there is defect in the process of taking of sample, the benefit of doubt would go to the accused. (Chhajoo Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 240 (All.) 

Salt – Sample not containing required quantity of Iodine – First accused Naresh Kumar relied on invoice issued by appellant – Invoice issued in the name of one Darshan Lal – No evidence as to who is Darshan Lal –  In the bill it is not specifically stated that salt is sold in packed condition – Only the weight of article shown – Held, in the absence of specific evidence as to whom invoice was issued and to whom adulterated article was sold by the appellant it is difficult to prove complicity of the appellant – Conviction of appellant is not sustainable. (Mohinder Kumar   Vs State of Haryana) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 178 (S.C.)

Adulterated ‘Cloves’ – Accused producing Bill/Cash Memo of manufacturer – It is a legal and valid warranty which cannot be disbelieved – Conviction and sentence unsustainable. (Damodar Prasad Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 740 (Rajasthan)

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 – Appendix B, Item 25.01 – Amendment in law – Hard boiled sugar confectionery – Standard of adulteration amended – Whether will be prospective or retrospective in nature – Penal statute which create new offences is always prospective and a person can be punished for a offence committed by him in accordance with law as existed on the date on which an offence was committed. (Dayal Singh  Vs  State of Rajasthan ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 616 (S.C.)

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 – Appendix B, Item 25.01 – Hard boiled sugar confectionery – Found to be adulterated in view of presence of mineral oil – Amendment in rules during pendency of appeal – Under amended rules presence of mineral oil permissible – Benefit of amendment not available as it was impracticable to apply the modified standards – Conviction upheld. (Dayal Singh  Vs  State of Rajasthan ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 616 (S.C.)

Sentence – Accused facing trial since 1981 and 64 years of age – He faced trial for a long period and remained in custody for about 22 days – Due to lack of proper legal advise accused deprived from taking a defence which could have been a ground for acquittal also – It would not be proper to send accused behind bar for an offence, which was committed about 23 years ago – Sentence reduced only upto fine. (Ramdev Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 516 (Rajasthan)

Sentence – Minimum sentence of six month awarded by courts below – Case 24 years old – Minimum sentence upheld – Strict adherence to Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and rules is essential for safe guarding the interest of consumers – Stringent laws will have no meaning if offenders could go away with mere fine. (Dayal Singh  Vs  State of Rajasthan ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 616 (S.C.)

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 – Appendix B, Item 25.01 – Report of Public Analyst – Hard boiled sugar confectionery – Found to be adulterated in view of presence of mineral oil – Non mentioning of percentage of mineral oil and fact as to whether mineral oil was of food grade – Mere presence of mineral oil, being unwholesome ingredient, amounted to adulteration – No need to give percentage etc. – Conviction upheld. (Dayal Singh  Vs  State of Rajasthan ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 616 (S.C.)

Prolonged proceedings – Case pending trial for the last 20 years – Trial a futile exercise – Proceedings quashed. (Moti Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 103 (Rajasthan)

Boiled milk – Kept in kitchen of a hotel intended to be used to make other articles of food – Found to be below standard – As milk was not intended for sale as a primary food no offence is committed. (Anas Abdul Khader Vs Food Inspector) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 222 (Kerala)

Milk intended to be sold as such – Failure of Food Inspector to enquire and satisfy himself – Version of accused that the milk was not to be sold as such has to be accepted – If on enquiry vendor does not make necessary disclosures or pleads ignorance only then question of presumption under Note I arises. (Nabeesa Mundoli Vs Food Inspector) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 698 (Kerala) 

An employee of the shop room from where sample is taken can be called as a witness u/s 10(7). (Food Inspector Vs Narayanan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 58 (Kerala) 

Sample – Found to be adulterated – Delay in sending report of Public Analyst or delay in filing complaint in Court – It is irregularity – Accused not entitled to acquittal. (Ramesh Chand alias Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 481 (P&H)

Sample – Found to be adulterated – Report of Public Analyst sent to accused prior to institution of complaint in Court whereas Rule 9A requires that report of Public Analyst be sent to accused after institution of complaint in Court – Rule 9A is directory – No prejudice caused to accused – Conviction upheld. (Ramesh Chand alias Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 481 (P&H)

Ghee – Sample found to be adulterated – Notice regarding filing of complaint must be given to the petitioner and notice must state which Court accused should approach for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory – If notice is not given it will cause prejudice to the accused – Prosecution quashed as no notice was given to accused. (Sat Pal Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 738 (P&H)

Second analysis – In absence of an application by accused for second analysis of sample by Director, accused cannot complain that he was deprived of his right to have the second sample analysed by the Director – Mere delay and laches on the part of the complainant in getting the summons served was not, in the absence of evidence to show that the sample had deteriorated when the summons was served, sufficient to hold that the accused was prejudiced by reason of deprivation of the right u/s 13(2) of the Act. (Ramesh Chand alias Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 481 (P&H)

Oil – Sample taken from sealed tin – Bill produced – Manufacturer arrayed as an accused, expired – Petitioner cannot be held liable – Proceedings quashed and set aside. (Shankar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 139 (Rajasthan)

Storing of an adulterated article of food for purposes other than for sale would not constitute an offence under S.16(1)(a) of the Act. (Govinda Rao Vs Food Inspector) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 20 (Ker.)

Independent witness – Joining of – Prosecution version that efforts were made to join the independent witness but no person was prepared to become a witness – There is a general apathy on the part of the public to become witnesses due to the fear of the accused or due to the harassment which they had to suffer by attending the Court on various dates – Held, it was not surprising if none had come forward to become a witness. (Fakir Chand Vs Govt. Food Inspector, Hansi) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 26  (P&H)

Accused faced trial for 16 years – Delay is not a special reason to award sentence lesser than the minimum prescribed under the statute – Prolonged litigation in the country is a general reason and not a special reason. (Dilbag Rai Vs State of Haryana)  2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 99 (P&H) 

 Accused faced trial for 18 years – Sentence reduced to already undergone – No matter minimum sentence is provided in the Act but convict can be compensated for mental agony as his right of speedy trial is violated. (Harbans Singh Vs State)  2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 24 (P&H) 

Ghee – Sample taken from a tin – No evidence that entire tin was heated and stirred – Prosecution of accused quashed. (Sat Pal Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 738 (P&H)

Conviction under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act – Accused faced trial for 20 years – Accused may move the Govt. to commute the sentence – Govt. to decide question of commutation in light of decision of Supreme Court in N.Sukumaran’s case. (State of H.P. Vs Narendra Kumar & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 104 (S.C.)

Tea – Sample found to be adulterated – Complaint lodged after 3 years and two months – Limitation u/s 468 Cr.P.C. is 3 years – Complaint quashed. (M/s.Lipton India Limited, Calcutta Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 377 (P&H) 

Conviction under Food Adulteration Act – Accused faced trial for 19 years – Accused released on Probation though minimum sentence is provided under the Act. (Krishan Kumar Vs State (U.T. Chandigarh)) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 49 (P&H)

 Adulterated food – Report of Public Analyst not put to accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Non putting of report has certainly prejudiced the defence of the petitioner – It vitiates the trial. (Om Parkash Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 691 (P&H) 

Boiled milk – Sample taken by mixing milk with cup – Fat which came on the top of boiled milk cannot be remixed with a cup – Acquittal upheld. (State of Punjab Vs Dalip Kumar) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 457 (P&H)

Chana Dal – Sample contained some grains of Kesri Dal – Report of Central Food Laboratory that sample is substandard – Accused running Karyana shop and selling different Dals (Pulses) – If some grains of Kesri Dal mix in Chana Dal it cannot be said that accused had mixed Kesri Dal in Chana Dal to earn more profit – Accused rightly acquitted.    (State of Haryana Vs Krishan Lal) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 78 (P&H)

Conviction – Accused sentenced to 8 months RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- – Accused faced trial for 15 years and suffered both mentally and physically – Sentence reduced to already undergone but amount of fine increased to Rs.10,000/- – In default of payment of fine, petitioner will undergo the same sentence as awarded by the trial Court. (Tikka Ram Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 649 (P&H) 

Haldi powder – Sample found to be not free from presence of foreign ingredient identified as tapioca starch – If sample is within the prescribed limit of purity and mere presence of tapioca starch in the absence of its quantity either by weight or percentage cannot be taken as a ground to say that the sample is adulterated – Accused acquitted by trial Court – Acquittal upheld. (State of Haryana Vs Sat Narain) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 221 (P&H)

Milk – Before taking sample milk stirred and made homogeneous – No evidence that sample was taken after making the milk stirred with clean stick and stirring was in clockwise and anti-clockwise in such a way that milk at the bottom was thoroughly mixed – Conviction set aside. (Lal Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 357 (P&H) 

Milk – Contained fat more than required standard but there was small deficiency in milk solids not fat – Accused undergoing agony of trial for 20 years – It is sufficient punishment – Accused acquitted. (Bagga Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 660 (P&H)

Milk – Found to be adulterated – Contention that milk was not for sale but for preparation of tea – Plea not tenable as sale to Food Inspector for analysis amounts to sale within the purview of the Act. (Dilbag Rai Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 99 (P&H)

Milk – Sample found to be adulterated – Complaint did not state that milk was shaken up clock-wise and anti clock-wise to make it homogeneous – This lacuna cannot be filled up by Food Inspector during his examination – Acquittal upheld. (State of Punjab Vs Subhash Chander) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 790 (P&H)

Sample of milk – Deficiency found in milk solids but no deficiency found in milk fat – Cannot be said that milk was not pure – Inference that can be drawn is that the buffalo/cow was not properly fed. (Bhal Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 187 (P&H) 

Tea leaves – Sample found to be adulterated – Public Analyst have not opined that substance was unfit for human consumption – Acquittal upheld. (The State of Haryana Vs Rattan Lal) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 346 (P&H)

Tea – Found to be substandard by Microspoic examination – Chemical examination not conducted – Held, Microspoic examination of an article is not an accurate method for examining adulteration in an article – Chemical test is a must. (M/s.Lipton India Limited, Calcutta Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 377 (P&H) 

Arhar dal – Sample found to be adulterated – Accused convicted and sentenced to 9 months RI – Offence 10 years old – Sentence reduced to already undergone. (Chander Prakash Vs State (Food Inspector) U.T.Chandigarh) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 281 (P&H)

Offence under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act – Conviction – High Court acquitted accused in appeal as prosecution not able to make out a case – No reason to interfere with order of acquittal. (State of Haryana Vs Satish Kumar) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 523 (S.C.)

Sample of Toffee Honey Drops – Report of Public Analyst that sample is not of Toffee but a product of Hard Boiled Sugar Confectionery – No offence is made out – Proceedings quashed. (Ashok Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 328 (P&H) 

Conviction under Food Adulteration Act – Accused faced trial for 17 years – Even if minimum sentence is provided an accused can be granted the benefit of probation – Accused released on probation. (Balwinder Singh Vs State of U.T. Administration) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 252 (P&H) 

Milk – Sample contained non solid fat of 8.1% instead of 8.5% and contained solid fat at 4.5% instead of 4% – Acquittal by High Court by giving benefit by assuming that possibility of improper stirring could not be ruled out – Order of High Court set aside – It was factually found by lower Courts that sample was properly stirred – High Court cannot substitute a factual foundation by an assumption. (State of Haryana Vs Daya Nand) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 182 (S.C.)

Sample of food article found to be adulterated – Magistrate followed procedure meant for warrant case without first following procedure of summary trial – Procedure followed by Magistrate contrary to mandatory provision of S.16-A – Accused cannot be convicted. (State of Punjab Vs Subhash Chander ) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 53 (P&H)

Independent witness with regard to taking of sample not examined – Accused acquitted. (State of Punjab Vs Subhash Chander ) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 53 (P&H)

Saunf – Sample found to be contain three rodent excreta – Sample found to be adulterated as in case of Saunf, rodent excreta is not permissible to any extent – In such a case it is not necessary to prove further that article of food was unfit for human consumption. (State of Punjab Vs Subhash Chander ) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 53 (P&H)

Milk – Contained in a drum – While taking sample milk should be stirred and made homogeneous with a clean stick or a milk measurement or a plunger. (Fakir Chand Vs Govt. Food Inspector, Hansi) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 26  (P&H)

Milk – Sample found adulterated – Contention of accused that he was not a milk vendor but was carrying milk for function of his relative – Accused found carrying measuring Jug also – Held, it shows that milk was for sale. (Fakir Chand Vs Govt. Food Inspector, Hansi) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 26  (P&H)

Ladoos – Report of Public Analyst that it contained unpermitted colour – Non mention in the report that it is injurious to health – It is not fatal to the prosecution case as adding of any colouring material is prohibited under the Act and Rules as it is harmful to human health. (Suraj Pal Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 433 (P&H)

Kesari Dal – Sale forbidden by Rule 44-A which came into force on 6.4.2000 – Sale of Besan mixed with Kesari Dal prior to coming into force of said rule – Conviction set aside. (Dinesh Kumar Vs State of M.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 622 (S.C.)

Atta – Report of Public Analyst that sample is  adulterated as it showed presence of nine insects, six living and three dead weevils – In absence of report of Public Analyst that sample was insect-infested and unfit for human consumption on account of presence of insects, accused cannot be convicted. (State of Haryana through Govt.Food Inspector, Gohana Vs Rajender Parshad) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 745 (P&H)

Company – If a person has been nominated under S.17(2) that person shall be proceeded against unless it is shown that the offence was committed with the consent/connivance/negligence of any Director, Manager, Secretary or Officer of the Company in which case the said person also can be proceeded against. (Govinda Rao Vs Food Inspector) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 20 (Ker.)

Company – Person nominated to be incharge and responsible to the conduct of the business of the Company can only be proceeded against – If no person has been nominated, then every person, who was in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company can be proceeded against – No presumption can be drawn merely on basis of list of directors filed by Asst. Commercial Taxation Officer that petitioner was either nominated or de facto incharge of and responsible to company for conduct of business. (K.Sunitha Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 424 (Raj.)

Company – Oil found to be adulterated – Prosecution of Directors – Directors cannot be prosecuted in absence of allegation that the offence was committed with their consent and connivance and they are therefore liable to be tried alongwith others – Directors discharged and process rescinded. (Iqbal Abdul Khaliq Ahmed Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 31 (Bombay) 

Company – Prosecution of Directors – Food Inspector visited shop of vendor and stockist of company and took sample of Jam which was found to be adulterated – In complaint no whisper against Directors of Company that they are responsible for commission of offence – Order issuing process against Directors quashed. (Corn Products Co.(India) Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 148(Bombay)

Retailer – Opened the container and sold the goods in retail – Does not lose the protection of S.19(2) provided he proves that he purchased the article of food with warranty from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer and the article of food was properly stored while in his possession and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it. (Food Inspector Vs Narayanan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 58 (Kerala)

Vendor can claim protection of section 19(2) only if : (i) he proves that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer from whom he purchased the article was duly licenced to manufacture, distribute and deal with such product; (ii) He must further prove that a written warranty in the prescribed form had been issued to him; (iii) that he had, while the article was in his possession, properly stored the article and that he sold the same in the same state as he purchased it. (Varghese Vs State of Kerala) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 97 (Kerala)

Misbranded – Purchase of article from manufacturer against a bill and sale of article in the same condition – Article properly stored – Article found to be misbranded – No offence against the accused made out – Bill, cash memo or invoice in respect of sale of any article of food given by manufacturer or distributor or dealer to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be warranty given by such manufacturer, dealer or distributor. (M/s Ram Dhan Rikhi Ram Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 103 (P&H)

Tea packet – Month and year of manufacture not mentioned on the packet – Sample misbranded – Sample however not adulterated – Tea was in a sealed packet and seal was not tampered with – It is for the manufacturer to correctly depict the label with regard to its manufacture and year of package in accordance with rules – Retailer is entitled to benefit of S.19(2)(a)(ii) and (h) – Criminal proceedings against accused (retailer) quashed. (Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 165 (P&H) 

Sample – Taken from retailer – Found to be adulterated – Retailer purchased food article without any bill and warranty from the manufacturer – Manufacturer cannot be summoned as accused. (Ramesh Chand Vs Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 305 (P&H) 

Warranty – Protection to vendor – Vendor can seek protection if he proves that the article of food purchased is covered by written warranty in the prescribed form and that article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it. (Ramesh Chand Vs Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 305 (P&H) 

Benefit of S.19(2) – Denial on ground that there is no warranty given by manufacturer – A Bill or cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale given by the manufacturer would be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer. (Sainudheen Vs Food Inspector) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 388 (KERALA)

Milk – Less quantity of milk alleged to be purchased as a result of which milk sent for chemical analysis less than 250 ml. – Panchas in whose presence milk was purchased not examined – Conviction on basis of sole testimony of Food Inspector, is not sustainable. (Rama Balawant Hegde Vs The Food Inspector, Nippani Municipality ) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 30(Karnataka)

Sanction for prosecution – Typed sanction on the complaint itself – No endorsement on the appended papers appended to the complaint that the same has been perused before according consent for prosecution – Held, consent for prosecution is granted in mechanical manner. (Abdul Haleem Vs State of U.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 567 (All.)

Sanction u/s 20 – Issued on cyclostyled proforma – No indication that authority had applied its mind to offence committed – Accused acquitted. (Mohd.Ashan Vs Delhi Administration) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 478 (Delhi)

Impleading a dealer, manufacturer or distributor under S.20A – Power cannot be invoked before stage of adducing evidence in the trial nor after conclusion of trial. (Govinda Rao Vs Food Inspector) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 20 (Ker.)

Pan Masala, Gutka (containing tobacco) – Its manufacture, sale and storage banned by State Food (Health) Authority – Notification quashed as (1) Power to ban food article vests in Central Government and not in State Authority; (2) State Authority can ban the article as a transitory measure in emergent situation i.e. outbreak or spread of infections and not as permanent measure; (3) Bar abridges fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 14 of Constitution. (Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 530 (S.C.)

Rule 14 is mandatory and if it is proved that mandate of this rule is not complied with, accused is entitled to acquittal – Not only the container in which the sample of food articles are taken, intermediary vessels, spoon etc. where food articles are handled for mixing, stirring or otherwise for the purpose of sampling also shall be clean and dry. (Babu Vs Food Inspector) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 359 (Kerala)