Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... criminal case in view of the facts of that case. the reasoning is given on the basis of the facts of that case and due to the provisions of the act, this court is avoiding to discuss the reasons given in that proceeding. similarly, the facts of other case,criminal writ petition no.206/2013, decided by other hon'ble judge of ..... ground taken by the petitioners. further, the complainant was originally appointed as tahsildar, he was working on deputation in the corporation and he was discharging the duties as prabhag adhikari / ward officer (officer mentioned in state notification) and this circumstance also cannot be ignored. it will be a matter of evidence, to prove this contention. 25) copy of judgment delivered in ..... order made by the commissioner of nanded municipal corporation, copy of which is at exhibit "g". ??hindi ?? the order shows that the assistant commissioners of the corporation were working as ward officers of respective areas of the corporation. this order was issued on 17th june 2011 and the action was taken subsequent to the date of the order by the assistant ..... in the corporation. it is contention that there is no separate cadre of prabhag adhikari/ward officer in this corporation and so the assistant commissioners are working as prabhag adhikari. 8) in the reply affidavit the respondent has placed reliance on the cases reported as : (i) (2008 4 scc 471 (cbi v. k.m. sharan); (ii) (2010) 11 scc 226 (state of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... will have to say about their or other's liability. in view of the aforesaid provisions and the wording of section 17 (4) of the act, this court holds that opportunity needs to be given to the prosecution to discharge such initial burden. if that is not done, in no case the prosecution ..... manufactured in the unit and also other information as needs to be provided under the act. in the letter dated 12-9-2008, the manufacturer contended that copy of report supplied by the drugs inspector was not signed by the director of central laboratory and ..... quite different which is apparent from the fact that firstly the controversy of the complaint not having any necessary averments was not present before the high court in the reported decision. secondly, in that case, there was only a bald statement that the respondents were directors of the manufacturers. in the ..... batch, the batch from which sample was collected. the dealer informed that all the bottles were already distributed by it. 6. on 21-8-2008 the drugs inspector sent letter to the manufacturing unit of accused no.4 from himachal pradesh and requested to supply information regarding quantity of aforesaid drug ..... in the drug. 5. copies of the report of the central laboratory were supplied to the main dealer, the manufacturer and retailer. on 16-10-2008 the drugs inspector visited the depot of accused no.3 dealer. the dealer informed that it had purchased 13000 200 ml of bottle of the .....Tag this Judgment!