Skip to content


In Re: Ramasami Konar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subjectfood adulteration
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1942Mad48
AppellantIn Re: Ramasami Konar and anr.
Excerpt:
- lakshmana rao, j.1. the sample was in fact analyzed by the government analyst and it was not incumbent on the magistrate to send it again to the government analyst under section 16, clause (5), madras prevention of adulteration act, 1918. there is therefore no ground for interference with the conviction of the petitioners and the sentence of petitioner 1 is not excessive. but petitioner 2 is the ser vant and his fine is excessive. the fine of petitioner 2 is therefore reduced to rs. 5 and otherwise this petition is dismissed.
Judgment:

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. The sample was in fact analyzed by the Government Analyst and it was not incumbent on the Magistrate to send it again to the Government Analyst under Section 16, Clause (5), Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1918. There is therefore no ground for interference with the conviction of the petitioners and the sentence of petitioner 1 is not excessive. But petitioner 2 is the ser vant and his fine is excessive. The fine of petitioner 2 is therefore reduced to Rs. 5 and otherwise this petition is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //