State Vs. Surajmal

State vs Surajmal

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Feb 23, 2000

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/770366

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/770366
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Bhagwati Prasad, J.
Decided On: Feb 23, 2000
Case Number: S.B. Cri. Appeal No. 44 of 1991
Subject: Food Adulteration;Criminal
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

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

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 20--Sanction--Not signed by Chief Medical and Health Officer--Prosecution invalid.;Appeal Dismissed -

Key legal issue: Food Adulteration;Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State

Respondent

Surajmal

Legal References

Reported In: 2000WLC(Raj)UC322; 2000(2)WLN720

Excerpt

prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 - section 20--sanction--not signed by chief medical and health officer--prosecution invalid.;appeal dismissed - bhagwati prasad, j.1. this appeal arises out of a decision of the addl. chief judicial magistrate, pratapgarh dated 29.9.1989 passed in criminal case no. 91/84.2. the learned trial court has acquitted the accused by considering that sanction, which has been granted to prosecute the accused, is not a conscious decision. the sanction does not show any application of mind by the authority granting sanction. the trial court has found that such grant of sanction was not in accordance with the provisions of the food adulteration act and therefore, acquitted the accused.3. learned counsel for the state has drawn attention of the court towards ex. p/6, which is printed form filled in by some one other than the chief medical & health officer.4. the court has examined ex. p/6 and come to the conclusion that signatory of ex. p/6 is not the chief medical & health officer. in this background, finding of the trial court does not appear to be vitiated on any count. in this view of the matter, no interference is called for. there does not appear to be any perversity or illegality in the order of the trial court. the appeal having no force is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Bhagwati Prasad, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a decision of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh dated 29.9.1989 passed in Criminal Case No. 91/84.

2. The learned trial court has acquitted the accused by considering that sanction, which has been granted to prosecute the accused, is not a conscious decision. The sanction does not show any application of mind by the Authority granting sanction. The trial court has found that such grant of sanction was not in accordance with the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act and therefore, acquitted the accused.

3. Learned counsel for the State has drawn attention of the Court towards Ex. P/6, which is printed form filled in by some one other than the Chief Medical & Health Officer.

4. The Court has examined Ex. P/6 and come to the conclusion that signatory of Ex. P/6 is not the Chief Medical & Health Officer. In this background, finding of the trial court does not appear to be vitiated on any count. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for. There does not appear to be any perversity or illegality in the order of the trial court. The appeal having no force is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2000 Same Parties State vs Surajmal Same Subject Food Adulteration;Criminal Same Judge Bhagwati Prasad, J.

Food Adulteration;Criminal