Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ram Chand Vs. Emperor

Ram Chand vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 27, 1928
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/470959

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Decided On
Subject
Food Adulteration;Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Food Adulteration;Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Chand

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1929All157

Excerpt

- dalal, j.1. the applicant ram chand has been convicted under section 4, united provinces prevention of adulteration act (6 of 1912), for selling adulterated ghee. his prosecution was duly sanctioned as required by section 12 of the act, but a complaint was not lodged till more than thirty days after the sanction by the health officer. the argument here was that the trial court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the prosecution. section 15 lays down that no summons shall issue for the attendance of any person accused of an offence under section 4, unless the same is applied for within thirty days from the date upon which the order of consent referred to in section 12 shall have been made or given. in my opinion this section does not deal with the jurisdiction of the court. jurisdiction arises under section 12 on the order or consent in writing of the health officer. if the applicant had disobeyed the summons, he could not have been prosecuted under section 174, i.p.c. when, however, he appeared and stood his trial, section 15 is not so worded as to deprive the court of jurisdiction. it only prohibits the issue of summons, but not the taking place of a trial.2. it was further argued that the fine of rs. 100 was excessive. i do not think so, having regard to the frequency of this kind of offence. i dismiss this application.

Full Judgment

Dalal, J.

1. The applicant Ram Chand has been convicted under Section 4, United Provinces Prevention of Adulteration Act (6 of 1912), for selling adulterated ghee. His prosecution was duly sanctioned as required by Section 12 of the Act, but a complaint was not lodged till more than thirty days after the sanction by the Health Officer. The argument here was that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the prosecution. Section 15 lays down that no summons shall issue for the attendance of any person accused of an offence under Section 4, unless the same is applied for within thirty days from the date upon which the order of consent referred to in Section 12 shall have been made or given. In my opinion this section does not deal with the jurisdiction of the Court. Jurisdiction arises under Section 12 on the order or consent in writing of the Health Officer. If the applicant had disobeyed the summons, he could not have been prosecuted under Section 174, I.P.C. When, however, he appeared and stood his trial, Section 15 is not so worded as to deprive the Court of jurisdiction. It only prohibits the issue of summons, but not the taking place of a trial.

2. It was further argued that the fine of Rs. 100 was excessive. I do not think so, having regard to the frequency of this kind of offence. I dismiss this application.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial