Gujarat Court August 1963 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State of Gujarat Vs. Shantaben Wife of Bhol Dhulabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj136; 1964CriLJ32; (1964)0GLR578
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent, who was prosecuted under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Feed Adulteration Act. Upon the evidence and on the admission of the accused, the learned Magistrate found that the accused had sold milk, but the learned Magistrate did not attach any value to the report, Ex. 6, of the public analyst on the ground that the prosecution did not examine the public analyst. The learned Magistrate relied on Suleman Usman v. State of Gujarat, 1961-2 Guj LR 402 : (AIR 1951 Guj 120), and observed that in view of this ruling a report of the Chemical Analyser could have no probative value and no weight could be attached to the report unless the report is full and complete and discloses the test or experiments performed by the Chemical Analyse, the factual data revealed by such test or experiments and the reason which led the Chemical Analyser to form such factual data. In that case, my learned brother, with resp...
Prafullavadan Dinkerray Saiyed Vs. Chokshi Bhuderbhai Mathurbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-01-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj100
V.B. Raju, J.1. The point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the lower Court was wrong in holding that the Darkhast given on 27-10-60 was in time. The original decree was passed on 20-9-48. In 1957 there was a compromise and it was agreed that the decretal amount may be paid in instalments. The Court recorded this compromise below the decree. The lower Court accepted the contention that on account of this fact there is a subsequent order of the Court directing the payment of money in instalments and therefore under Section 48(i)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, limitation would run from the date of default in making the payment of any instalment. Section 48, Civil Procedure Code, reads as follows:-'(1) Where an application to execute a decree not being a decree granting an injunction has been made, no order for the execution of the same decree shall be made upon any fresh application presented after the expiration of twelve years from (a) the date of the decree so...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›