M.C. Vs. Ramjas

M.C. vs Ramjas

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Feb 03, 1986

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/765283

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/765283
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Guman Mal Lodha, J.
Decided On: Feb 03, 1986
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 1976
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

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

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Rule 22 is directory and not mandatory Relied on AIR 1978 SC 933.;Appeal Dismissed -

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.C.

Respondent

Ramjas

Legal References

Cases Referred: R.G. Panjwani v. State of Maharashtra
Reported In: 1987(2)WLN638

Excerpt

prevention of food adulteration rules, 1955 - rule 22 is directory and not mandatory relied on air 1978 sc 933.;appeal dismissed - guman mal lodha, j.1. no one appeared for the municipal council. i have heard mr. tibrewal for the accused and perused the record.2. mr. tibrewal very fairly concedes that interpretation of rule of 22 of the prevention of food adulteration rule, 1955 has undergone change by judgment of supreme court in state of kerala v. alassary mohd. : 1978 crilj925 .3. in this very judgment the supreme court after holding that rule 22 is directory and not mandatory, refused to interfere with the judgment of acquittal based on earlier judgment in pamneni' s case, r.g. panjwani v. state of maharashtra : 1975 crilj254 .4. on the same analogy, the order of acquittal in this case can not be interfered with now. the appeal is dismissed as such.

Full Judgment

Guman Mal Lodha, J.

1. No one appeared for the Municipal Council. I have heard Mr. Tibrewal for the accused and perused the record.

2. Mr. Tibrewal very fairly concedes that interpretation of rule of 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rule, 1955 has undergone change by judgment of Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Alassary Mohd. : 1978 CriLJ925 .

3. In this very judgment the Supreme Court after holding that Rule 22 is directory and not mandatory, refused to interfere with the judgment of acquittal based on earlier judgment in Pamneni' s case, R.G. Panjwani v. State of Maharashtra : 1975 CriLJ254 .

4. On the same analogy, the order of acquittal in this case can not be interfered with now. The appeal is dismissed as such.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1986 Same Parties M.C. vs Ramjas Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Guman Mal Lodha, J.

Criminal