Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: punjab municipal act 1911 Court: orissa Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.039 seconds)

Jan 22 2004 (HC)

Kumar Assandas Vazirani and anr. Vs. Dr. Sunil Prakash Gupta and anr.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jan-22-2004

Reported in : 97(2004)CLT302; 2004CriLJ2214; 2004(I)OLR367

..... . brij lal mittal, (1998) 5 scc 343 : 1998 air scw 2240 : air 1998 sc 2327 : 1998 cri. l. j. 3287) under the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940; municipal corporation of delhi v. ghisa ram, air 1967 sc 970 : 1967 cri. l.j. 939; chetumal v. state of madhya pradesh, (1981) 3 scc 72 : ( ..... sample to the central insecticides laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence. this issue is no longer res integra. in state of punjab v. national organic chemical industries ltd., (1996) 10 jt (sc) 480 this court in somewhat similar circumstances said that the procedure laid down under section ..... have been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the central insecticides laboratory under sub-section (4) of section 24 of the act. under sub-section (3) of section 24 report signed by the insecticide analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall be conclusive ..... was taken had already expired. according to sri routray, the petitioners having been deprived of such available right as provided under section 24(4) of the act, the same caused serious prejudice to them and on that ground alone the complaint is liable to be quashed. in support of such contention, learned ..... both the cases were taken up for hearing and disposed of.3. learned counsel for the petitioners sri routray referring to section 24 of the insecticides act contended that as provided in the said section, the insecticide analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test, shall within a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 2004 (HC)

Mohammed Zahir Vs. Food Inspector, Food Cell and anr.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Apr-23-2004

Reported in : 2004(I)OLR659

..... constitute in itself sufficient prejudice to the accused so as to entitle him to acquittal. referring to a decision of the apex court in the case of municipal corporation of delhi v. ghisa ram reported in 1975 (1) f.a.c. 186 this court further observed that delay in such cases plainly comes to ..... challenged the said order of the learned chief judicial magistrate on the ground that the valuable right conferred by the statute under section 13(2) of the act having been denied to the petitioner, serious prejudice has been caused to him and there being no possibility of conviction, continuance of the preceding will amount ..... under these circumstances, there cannot be any doubt in the mind that the right given to the accused under the above provision (section 13(2) of the act) has been denied to the accused. therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether the proceeding should be allowed to continue or to be dropped. ..... . in order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to refer to section 13(2) of the prevention of food adulteration act. '13. report of public analyst - (1) xx xx xx (2) on receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1 ..... would be abuse of process of court and quashed the proceeding. a similar view has also been taken by punjab and haryana high court in the case of narinder singh and anr. v. state of punjab reported in 1985(1) f.a.c. 120. the court in the aforesaid case held that delay in .....

Tag this Judgment!


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