Dismissed

Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Surinder Kumar and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Dec 2008CRM-A/173/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal filed by the Union Territory of Chandigarh to invalidate the acquittal of an accused regarding food adulteration. The court held that since the label contained an AGMARK certificate number, no false claim was made, and thus the acquittal stands. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; there were no grounds to grant leave to appeal.

Union Territory, Chandigarh Vs Surinder… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Crl. Appeal No.173-MA of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Crl. Appeal No.173-MA of 2008 Date of decision:01.12.2008.

¶6

Union Territory, Chandigarh

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Surinder Kumar and others

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.

¶12

¶13

Present: Mr. Tarundeep Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2

¶15

¶16

S.D.ANAND, J.

¶17

The Union Territory, Chandigarh has filed the present plea to obtain the invalidation of the finding of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondent/accused by the learned Trial Magistrate.

¶18

It is apparent, from a perusal of the impugned order, that on a plea filed by the respondent/accused, the second sample was forwarded to the Director, Central Food Laboratory and it was found to be adulterated on the following finding:-

¶19

“Does not contain AGMARK grade designation (Logo) and hence does not conform to PFA Act 1954 under Section 21 (a).”

¶20

In the context of the charge afore-mentioned, learned Trial Magistrate noticed that the Food Inspector had himself found the following

¶21

Crl. Appeal No.173-MA of 2008

¶22

-2-

¶23

¶24

particulars relating to AGMARK available on the label.

¶25

“T.F. No.57 (Agmark)

¶26

The learned Magistrate proceeded to exonerate the respondent/accused by recording the following observations:-

¶27

“However, as already discussed above, there is no provision for affixing AGMARK logo on the label. AGMARK Certificate number as well as AGMARK serial number have been mentioned and there was thus no false claim on the quality of the product on the part of either the manufacturer or the vendor. The Public Analyst had not disclosed the sample to be adulterated on the ground on which Central Food Laboratory had declared it to be adulterated as no logo was required to be affixed. In no manner, the accused can be held to have violated the provisions of PFA Act. “

¶28

Learned counsel has not been able to persuade this court to find any fault with the finding recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate.

¶29

In the light of the fore-going discussion, the appeal is held to be devoid of merit and there are no ground to grant the leave to appeal to the appellant/complainant.

¶30

Dismissed.

¶31

December 01, 2008 (S.D.ANAND) Pka JUDGE

¶32

Crl. Appeal No.173-MA of 2008

¶33

-3-

¶34

Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Surinder Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Surinder Kumar 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

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Manjit Singh Vs Piara Singh etc.

Vijay Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab

Udmi Ram Vs Sita Ram etc.

Channa Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Satish Kumar Vs Ishwar Singh