Rajesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal vs State of Jharkhand and anr.

Disposition Application allowed Court Jharkhand Decided Mar 03, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/516604

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/516604
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: D.K. Sinha, J.
Decided On: Mar 03, 2006
Case Number: Criminal M.P. No. 425 of 2004
Subject: Food Adulteration
Disposition: Application allowed

Case Summary

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

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A.No.59/1988] Section 166; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, A.K. Gohil & S. Samvatsar, JJ] Application for compensation for personal injury Death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons Held, Claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. Claim will not survive to ...

Key legal issue: Food Adulteration
Outcome / disposition: Application allowed
Acts & sections: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 16(1) and 20

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal

Advocate S.L. Agrawal, Adv.

Respondent

State of Jharkhand and anr.

Advocate APP and; Deepak Kumar Prasad, Adv. for opposite No. 2

Legal References

Acts: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 16(1) and 20
Reported In: [2006(2)JCR296(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant.orderd.k. sinha, j.1. heard learned counsel on behalf of the parties.2. it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that learned sub-divisional judicial magistrate, jamshedpur quite mechanically has taken cognizance of the offence on 5.11.2003 under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the prevention of food adulteration act as against the petitioner, rajesh kumar agarwal though no sanction was accorded by the competent authority as required by law as contained in section 20 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954.3. it has been pointed out with reference to annexure 2 which is the sanction order of civil surgeon-cum-chief medical officer, east singbhum, jamshedpur, the competent authority under the statute to accord sanction for prosecution that he had given written consent for launching the prosecution only against rabi b. pareekh, diloo b. pareekh, sri atul r. taurik and mrs. anahita a taunk and not against the petitioner. on the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 (food inspector) it is stated that a subsequent written consent was accorded by the civil surgeon-cum-chief medical officer, east singhbhum, jamshedpur by way of corrigendum that the name of the petitioner was left to be mentioned on account of human error in the previous sanction letter dated 4.11.2003 and it was requested to the sub-divisional judicial magistrate, jamshedpur to accept the error.4. it is admitted fact that there is no sanction for launching prosecution against the petitioner, rajesh kumar agarwal for the offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 and hence cognizance taken by the sub-divisional judicial magistrate, jamshedpur in c/2 case no. 6243 of 2003 on 5.11.2003 is quashed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

D.K. Sinha, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties.

2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur quite mechanically has taken cognizance of the offence on 5.11.2003 under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as against the petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Agarwal though no sanction was accorded by the competent authority as required by law as contained in Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

3. It has been pointed out with reference to Annexure 2 which is the sanction order of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, East Singbhum, Jamshedpur, the competent authority under the statute to accord sanction for prosecution that he had given written consent for launching the prosecution only against Rabi B. Pareekh, Diloo B. Pareekh, Sri Atul R. Taurik and Mrs. Anahita A Taunk and not against the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 (Food Inspector) it is stated that a subsequent written consent was accorded by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur by way of corrigendum that the name of the petitioner was left to be mentioned on account of human error in the previous sanction letter dated 4.11.2003 and it was requested to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur to accept the error.

4. It is admitted fact that there is no sanction for launching prosecution against the petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Agarwal for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and hence cognizance taken by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/2 Case No. 6243 of 2003 on 5.11.2003 is quashed.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2006 Same Parties Rajesh Kumar Agarwal vs State of Jharkhand and anr. Same Subject Food Adulteration Same Judge D.K. Sinha, J. Acts & Sections Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 16(1) an...

Food Adulteration