Thursday, January 20, 2011

PFA RULINGS FOR PROSECUTION-PART III.


44
AIR 1994 S.C. 1818
Rule 7(3) is directory.
45
1987 Crl L.J. 1677
1.Milk marginally deficient in SNF but fat more than prescribed std.-milk is adulterated.
2.Scope of S.13(2-B)-mandatory only when accused is prejudicied.
46
AIR 1992 S.C. 1121
1.Appointment of Public Analyst-his jurisdiction
2.Testimony of F.I.-Corraboration by Panch witness- not necessary unless the very factum of purchase is challenged.
47
2002(1)-FAC 230-S.C.
S.10(7) – Compliance of.
48
2003(2)FAC 246-M.P.H.C.-State Vs Patiram
No rule or prudence that the evidence of F.I. should be corroborated by Ind. Witness.
49
2003(2)FAC-Ker.H.C.-
 F.I. Vs Narayanan
S.10(7)- employee of the shop who was called as witness is an Ind. Witness.
50
2003(2) FAC-75-Ker.H.C.- N.C.George Vs State & other
S.16(1)(C)-Preventing F.I. from taking F.S.- - reg.
51
2000(2) FAC-161. Orissa H.C
Petitioners refused to accept the notice and closed the shop, and that such conduct of the petitioners amounts to preventing F.I. from taking sample.
52
AIR 1962(All)517
Notice of intention to take sample – it is enough if it is served to the person from whom the sample was taken.
53
2000(2) FAC-109. MAD. H.C
Since milk was sold without any indication of quality- the std. for buffalo milk would apply.
54
S.C.-2003(2) FAC –343-D.L.Chatterjee Vs Kailashpati Oil Mill & others
Sanction- fresh sanction- not necessary at post institutional stage based on subsequent report.
55
MAD.H.C-1984-L.W.(Crl)244
“Institution”-meaning – date on which cognizance of offence is taken by the court, relevant, not the date of the occerrence.
56
MAD. H.C. – 2002(1) FAC 1
Delay in prosecution – prejudice to accused - reg
57
S.C. – 2002 (1) FAC 230
A)No std. Fixed for ‘Boiled Milk’
B)S.10(7) – compliance reg.
58
Guj. H.C.-2007 Crl.L.J.1117
13(2) notice not necessary for ‘Misbranded” samples.

59
A.P.H.C.2007 Crl.L.J.2469
i)Label itself is a warranty.
ii)R.32(e) – not ultravires. (Ref.S.No.15 )

No comments: