Dismissed

Mr.Shivchandra Sayabanappa Revate and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC14 Jan 2011APPLN/1442/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application sought quashing of a criminal reference alleging offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Relying on a leave and license agreement, applicants claimed no prosecution liability. The court held the license provision vested responsibility in the applicants and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of RCC No.57/2007 dismissed; prosecution cannot be questioned.

Mr.Shivchandra Sayabanappa Revate and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1442/2009. (1. Mr.Shivchandra Sayabanappa Revate and Ors. Vs. The State of Mah. and Ors.)

¶5

Office notes, office Memoranda of

¶6

Coram,appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶7

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶8

Mr.GV Wani, Adv. for applicants;

¶9

Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for State.

¶10

¶11

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.

¶12

DATE :14th January, 2011.

¶13

1) Heard.

¶14

2) Quashment of RCC No.57/2007, pending
before the learned JMFC, Omerga, for the
offences under Sections 16 and 17 of
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954 and contravention of Sections 7(1)
r/w 2(ia) (a), 2(ia) and B, is sought.

¶15

3) Mr.Wani submits, even if the raid
carried by the respondents/authorities
in July is accepted, however, the
applicants cannot be fasten with the
liability in the light of existing leave
and license agreement dated 27.2.2007.
The applicants were not incharge of the
factory. Consequently, no prosecution
couldbelaunchedagainstthe
applicants.

¶16

4) The above submissions of learned Counsel

¶17

¶18

are controverted in the affidavit in
reply of the Food Inspector – KS Shinde.
Perusal thereof illustrate, there
operates a license under the Rules in
favour of applicant no.4 and applicant
nos.1 and 2 as Directors. Any
transaction carried subsequently by the
applicants herein, would be naturally
within the frame of the license. The
license being in the name of the
applicants herein, the responsibility
basically vesting in the applicants will
not be terminated or diluted, even if
there operates a leave and license
agreementdated27.2.2007.

¶19

Consequently, the prosecution cannot be
questioned. No merit, the application
dismissed.

¶20

(K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE

¶21

bdv/

Mr.Shivchandra Sayabanappa Revate and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Shivchandra Sayabanappa Revate and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Balbhim Garje and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Jawahar Shantilal Shah

Jagannath Trimbak Labade Vs State of Maharashtra

Dhanraj Maharudrappa Molkire Vs Nirmalabai Sachidanand Maharaj and Ors.

Bhaskarrao Dinkarrao Meshram. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Othrs.

Smt.Sarita Ashok Balagali and Anr. Vs Ashok Bhimrao Balagali