Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Food Adulteration Cases

    Uploaded by

    sherry j thomas
    111 views1 page
    food adulteration cases- prevention of food adulteration Act- impleading manufactuers and dealers - question of successive warranty. 1990 (1) KLT 572, Chandak V. Food Inspector the division bench of Kerala Honourable Court held that, successive warranties are allowed as per the provisions of PFA Act. This would help the poor vendors to implead their successive dealers and distributors. 1979 Crl L J 969, Municipal Corporation of Delhi V. R Sahai and Other the three Bench decision of the Apex Court clarifies that, the jurisdiction under section 20A of the PFA Act can be exercised only during the trial. 2000 SCC (Cri) 1, Omprakash Shivprakash V. K I Kuriakose and Others that, the power to implead a dealer, Manufacturer or distributor under Section 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration can neither be invoked before the stage of adducing evidence in the trial nor after the conclusion of the trial. It is further held that, the ‘trial’ for the offences under the Act begins when under section 251 Crpc the Magistrate asks the accused whether he pleads guilty or not. 2010 2 KLT 206 (Ayankali Nadar & Sons V. Sivasankara Pillai) It is stated in the said decision by a Single Bench of High Court of Kerala that, only if there is evidence, then only the person can be impleaded as per section 20A of PFA Act.

    Original Title

    Food adulteration cases

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    food adulteration cases- prevention of food adulteration Act- impleading manufactuers and dealers - question of successive warranty. 1990 (1) KLT 572, Chandak V. Food Inspector the division bench of Kerala Honourable Court held that, successive warranties are allowed as per the provisions of PFA Act. This would help the poor vendors to implead their successive dealers and distributors. 1979 Crl L J 969, Municipal Corporation of Delhi V. R Sahai and Other the three Bench decision of the Apex Court clarifies that, the jurisdiction under section 20A of the PFA Act can be exercised only during the trial. 2000 SCC (Cri) 1, Omprakash Shivprakash V. K I Kuriakose and Others that, the power to implead a dealer, Manufacturer or distributor under Section 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration can neither be invoked before the stage of adducing evidence in the trial nor after the conclusion of the trial. It is further held that, the ‘trial’ for the offences under the Act begins when under section 251 Crpc the Magistrate asks the accused whether he pleads guilty or not. 2010 2 KLT 206 (Ayankali Nadar & Sons V. Sivasankara Pillai) It is stated in the said decision by a Single Bench of High Court of Kerala that, only if there is evidence, then only the person can be impleaded as per section 20A of PFA Act.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    111 views1 page

    Food Adulteration Cases

    Uploaded by

    sherry j thomas
    food adulteration cases- prevention of food adulteration Act- impleading manufactuers and dealers - question of successive warranty. 1990 (1) KLT 572, Chandak V. Food Inspector the division bench of Kerala Honourable Court held that, successive warranties are allowed as per the provisions of PFA Act. This would help the poor vendors to implead their successive dealers and distributors. 1979 Crl L J 969, Municipal Corporation of Delhi V. R Sahai and Other the three Bench decision of the Apex Court clarifies that, the jurisdiction under section 20A of the PFA Act can be exercised only during the trial. 2000 SCC (Cri) 1, Omprakash Shivprakash V. K I Kuriakose and Others that, the power to implead a dealer, Manufacturer or distributor under Section 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration can neither be invoked before the stage of adducing evidence in the trial nor after the conclusion of the trial. It is further held that, the ‘trial’ for the offences under the Act begins when under section 251 Crpc the Magistrate asks the accused whether he pleads guilty or not. 2010 2 KLT 206 (Ayankali Nadar & Sons V. Sivasankara Pillai) It is stated in the said decision by a Single Bench of High Court of Kerala that, only if there is evidence, then only the person can be impleaded as per section 20A of PFA Act.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    food adulteration cases- prevention of food adulteration Act- impleading manufac tuers and dealers - question of successive warranty.

    1990 (1) KLT 572, Chandak V. Food Inspector the division bench of Kerala Honoura ble Court held that, successive warranties are allowed as per the provisions of PFA Act. This would help the poor vendors to implead their successive dealers an d distributors. 1979 Crl L J 969, Municipal Corporation of Delhi V. R Sahai and Other the three Bench decision of the Apex Court clarifies that, the jurisdiction under section 20A of the PFA Act can be exercised only during the trial.

    2000 SCC (Cri) 1, Omprakash Shivprakash V. K I Kuriakose and Others that, the po wer to implead a dealer, Manufacturer or distributor under Section 20A of Preven tion of Food Adulteration can neither be invoked before the stage of adducing ev idence in the trial nor after the conclusion of the trial. It is further held th at, the trial for the offences under the Act begins when under section 251 Crpc the M gistrate asks the accused whether he pleads guilty or not.

    2010 2 KLT 206 (Ayankali Nadar & Sons V. Sivasankara Pillai) It is stated in the said decision by a Single Bench of High Court of Kerala that, only if there is evidence, then only the person can be impleaded as per section 20A of PFA Act.

    You might also like