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.

Kishan Lal Vs. Emperor

Kishan Lal vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 13, 1927
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/478455

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

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Food Adulteration

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kishan Lal

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1928All254; 108Ind.Cas.148

Excerpt

- orderashworth, j.1. in this case the chairman of the municipal board of ghaziabad sanctioned the prosecution of one kishen lal under section 4, u.p. prevention of adulteration act (6 of 1912) for exposing for sale adulterated ghi. the accused was convicted by a deputy magistrate. the sessions judge of meerut has referred the matter to this court on the ground that the prosecution was legally incorrect, as the municipal board had at a meeting expressed the opinion that a prosecution was not necessary. the deputy magistrate has explained that under section 50 (e), the board at ghaziabad could only exercise the particular function of sanctioning prosecutions through its chairman. the., sessions judge had apparently overlooked this provision. in view of this provision it would make no difference to the legality of the sanction that the board may have expressed itself against prosecution, even if it formally resolved against prosecution. in such a case the chairman is the board and his act binds the board, however much against the wish of the board which cannot interfere. the policy of the municipalities act was to enable certain functions of the board to be exercised by the chairman so as to avoid the delay necessitated by reference of the matter to the board. section 12, prevention of adulteration act (u.p. act 6 of 1912), which is a general provision as to sanctions of prosecution for adulteration cannot control section 50 (e), municipalities act, for two reasons. one is that; a general enactment cannot affect a special one; and the other reason is that the latter act was passed later than the former one.2. there is no reason for interference an revision and the record may be returned.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Ashworth, J.

1. In this case the Chairman of the Municipal Board of Ghaziabad sanctioned the prosecution of one Kishen Lal under Section 4, U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act (6 of 1912) for exposing for sale adulterated ghi. The accused was convicted by a Deputy Magistrate. The Sessions Judge of Meerut has referred the matter to this Court on the ground that the prosecution was legally incorrect, as the Municipal Board had at a meeting expressed the opinion that a prosecution was not necessary. The Deputy Magistrate has explained that under Section 50 (e), the Board at Ghaziabad could only exercise the particular function of sanctioning prosecutions through its Chairman. The., Sessions Judge had apparently overlooked this provision. In view of this provision it would make no difference to the legality of the sanction that the Board may have expressed itself against prosecution, even if it formally resolved against prosecution. In such a case the Chairman is the Board and his Act binds the Board, however much against the wish of the Board which cannot interfere. The policy of the Municipalities Act was to enable certain functions of the Board to be exercised by the Chairman so as to avoid the delay necessitated by reference of the matter to the Board. Section 12, Prevention of Adulteration Act (U.P. Act 6 of 1912), which is a general provision as to sanctions of prosecution for adulteration cannot control Section 50 (e), Municipalities Act, for two reasons. One is that; a general enactment cannot affect a special one; and the other reason is that the latter Act was passed later than the former one.

2. There is no reason for interference an revision and the record may be returned.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial