Advanced Search Results

The State of Maharashtra (at the Instance of Shri S.B. Jadhav, Food In ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : CriminalConsumer

Acts : Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 11, 13(2), 14A, 16, 17, 20 and 20(1); Prevention of Corruption Act; Evidence Act - Sections 114; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 100, 100(3), 100(7), 196A and 197; Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1958 - Rule 3; Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Rules 14, 16 and 16(6)

Reported in : 2004CriLJ2780

Section 20 of the Act was qualitatively same as expression 'Sanction' as would appear in Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. On that basis, it was contended that the rigours that would apply for a valid Sanction, would … expression 'Sanction' as would appear in Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. On that basis, it was contended that the rigours that would … 11, 1987 in Regular Criminal Case No. 26 of 1984, acquitting the Respondents of. the offences punishable under Section 16 read with Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

The Food Inspector Rep. by the Public Prosecutor Vs. Mutuku Ravichandr ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : CriminalFood Adulteration

Acts : Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 10, 16, 16(1), 16(2) and 16(4); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 42

Reported in : 2003(1)ALD(Cri)599; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)423; 2003CriLJ2449; 2003(1)LS401

16 (1), 16 (2) and 16 (4) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Section 42 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - first respondent refused to give sample of certain food item to Food Inspector (FI) - complaint … and inspection of any place under this section, follow, as far as may be, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating to the search or inspection of a place by a

M/S. Omparkash Shivprakash Vs. K.i. Kuriakose and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : CriminalFood Adulteration

Acts : Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 16(1) and 20A; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 2, 246, 251, 254(1), 262, 319 and 482

Reported in : AIR1999SC3870; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)633; 2000CriLJ26; 1999(4)Crimes315(SC); JT1999(8)SC569; 1999(3)KLT861(SC); RLW2000(2)SC353; 1999(7)SCALE8; (1999)8SCC633; [1999]Supp4SCR269

a two judge bench of the Supreme Court while considering the commencement of trial under general provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, has no application to the commencement of trial of a case for the purpose of the special provision … with that offence, then, the court may, notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 319 of the CrPC, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in Section 20 proceed against him as though a prosecution had been instituted against … launched by the Food Inspector, Cochin Corporation, for the offence under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act').

Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Hindu Marriage Act - Sections 4, 5(1), 11, 12 and 16; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 125

Reported in : AIR1988SC644; 1988(36)BLJR295; (1988)90BOMLR96; 1988CriLJ793; 1988(1)Crimes594(SC); JT1988(1)SC193; 1988MhLJ335(SC); 1988(1)SCALE184; (1988)1SCC530; [1988]2SCR809; 1988 INSC 25

The respondent shall not be permitted to claim for its refund. Criminal - maintenance - Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Sections 4, 5 (1) , 11, 12, and 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - A … male having a living lawfully wedded wife can maintain an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The appellant Smt. Yamunabai was factually married to respondent No. 1 Anantrao

Suresh H. Rajput Etc. Vs. Bhartiben Pravinbhai Soni and Others Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : CriminalFood Adulteration

Acts : Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 7, 12, 14A, 16 and 20; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 197; Constitution of India - Article 142

Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)74; AIR1996SC2883; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)828; 1996CriLJ1621; JT1995(9)SC210; 1995(7)SCALE217; (1996)7SCC199; [1995]Supp5SCR747

1991CriLJ1438 , one of us, (K. Ramaswamy, J.) considered the effect of the sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code at page 268 thus :It is equally well settled that before granting sanction the authority or the appropriate … on merits in favour of the prosecution. On appeal filed by the appellant under Section 378(4) of the CrPC, 1973, the High Court by order dated October 28, 1991 refused leave and confirmed the acquittal. Thus these appeals … laying the complaint against the respondent. In furtherance thereof, on June 7, 1986, a complaint was laid under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Act against the respondent. The Magistrate by order dated February 8, 1991

State of H.P. Vs. Narendra Kumar and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : CriminalFood Adulteration

Acts : Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 13(2), 13(3), 13(5), 16(1), 19 and 19(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 313; Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Rules 7, 7(3), 17 and 18; Constitution of India - Article 136; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 114

Reported in : JT2004(2)SC522; 2004(1)KLT1001(SC); 2004(2)SCALE502; (2004)4SCC567

the aforesaid extent. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 13(2), 13(3), 13(5), 16(1), 19 and 19(2); Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 - Section 313; Constitution of India - Article 136; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Prevention

Om Prakash Joshi, Advocate and ors Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 24, 24(1), 24(4), 24(8), 35 and 321; Constitution of India - Articles 13, 13(3), 14, 16, 16(1), 124(2), 126, 162, 163, 165, 165(2), 165(3), 216, 217, 217(1), 217(2), 222, 222(1), 226, 319, 361(1), 367 and 368 ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 2(7) - Order 3, Rule 4(2) and Rule 4(6); General Clauses Act - Sections 13; Advocates Act, 1961 ;

Reported in : AIR2002Raj33; 2001(3)WLC199; 2001(3)WLN632

in consultation with the Sessions Judge in accordance, with the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973;(3) A person shall be eligible to be appointed as Public Prosecutor or as an Additional Public Prosecutor … in accordance with the Rajasthan taw & Legal Affairs Department Manual (1999 read with Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.(c) The petitioners have not stated a single example of arbitrariness in the appointments and … for all cases before the High Court.(2) Under Clause (2) of Article 165 of the Constitution, the Governor has assigned, in addition to the duties

Ram Eqbal Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Subject : Property

Acts : Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act - Sections 16(3) and 33; Notaries Act, 1952 - Sections 8(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 139; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 145 and 297

which has been brought about by the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as also by the amendments made in the Civil Procedure Code. Firstly … to the petitioner because the said case was decided in terms of specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in which the oath or affidavit had to be sworn before the Magistrate in seisin of the … no avail to the petitioner because the said case was decided in terms of specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in which the oath or affidavit had to be sworn before the Magistrate in … deed No. 12148 on 28.11.1995.4. The petitioner filed a pre-emption application under Section 16(3) I of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and

State (Union of India (Uoi)) Vs. Ram Saran

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : CriminalService

Acts : Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 - Sections 3(1), 9, 10 and 16(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 4(1), 4(2), 5, 11, 12, 13 and 251; Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 - Rule 36; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898; Constitution of India; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860; Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 39

Reported in : [2004(101)FLR447]; [2004(2)JCR220(SC)]; JT2003(9)SC578; 2003(10)SCALE454; (2003)12SCC578

illegal. The High Court held that combined reading of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') clearly rule out the appointment of any person exercising powers of Judicial Magistrate, … held that combined reading of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') clearly rule out the … that the expression 'in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary' used therein did not render Section 16(2) of the Act redundant.2. At this juncture, it would be necessary to take note of the factual position.3.

State of Maharashtra Vs. Kishore Annaji Chawade

Court : Mumbai

Subject : CriminalFood Adulteration

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 256(1), 256(2), 262, 378(1), 378(2), 378(3), 378(4), 378(5) and 439; Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Sections 7 and 16(1)

Reported in : 1990CriLJ1556; 1989MhLJ139

maintainable, in view of section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He relied on a Single Bench judgment of this Court in State … should have been filed by the Food Inspector who was the complainant, in view of Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, by applying for special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal. The learned Judge observed that in … firstly, whether the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was justified in acquitting the respondent under S. 256(1) Criminal Procedure Code, and secondly, whether the appeal by the State is competent under S. 378(1), Criminal Procedure Code. For deciding … but as the Magistrate was on leave the case was adjourned. On 16-5-1985, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the respondent was absent but