LawforAll

▼
Thursday, May 29, 2014

Food Adulteration case - High court reduced the sentence to 3 months minimum sentence - No further reduction - Clause (m) postulates a situation where the articles fall below the prescribed standard even if it is not injurious to health. It is clear from this provision that if salt is added to chillies even if it would not be rendered injurious to health, nevertheless the quality/purity of the article would fall below the prescribed standards/its constituents as prescribed in A.05.05.01 limit. It would be adulterated.- Apex court held that We are of the view that no further benevolence can be shown to the appellant, more so, when it is a case of food adulteration. There is no special circumstances which may warrant reducing the sentence below the minimum. The appeal is accordingly dismissed= MITHILESH APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF NCT,DELHI RESPONDENT= 2014(May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41547

›
Food Adulteration case - High court reduced the sentence to 3 months minimum sentence - No further reduction  -  Clause (m) postulates a si...

Contempt of court - High court imposed fine of Rs.20,000/- Apex court held that Section 12(1) of the Act provides that if the court is satisfied that contempt of court has been committed, it may punish the contemnor with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to Rs.2,000/-, or with both. Section 12(2) further provides that “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.” Thus, the power to punish for contempt of the court is subject to limitations prescribed in sub-section (2) of the Act.= Bal Kishan Giri …Appellant Versus State of U.P. …Respondent= 2014 (May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41546

›
 Contempt of court - High court imposed fine of Rs.20,000/- Apex court held that Section 12(1)  of  the  Act  provides  that  if  the  cour...
Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Service matter - Non supply of UPSC Advise report before imposing penalty is void - charges framed against delinquent - denied - Enquiry found no charges proved and send the report - Disciplinary Authority not satisfied the report and formed opinion to punish the delinquent - issued show cause notice - explanation submitted - Disciplinary authority send the same for opinion of UPSC - advise of U.P.S.C - not furnished and not asked for explanation from the delinquent - challanged - tribunal dismissed - High court set aside the both orders and direct to furnish report of UPSC and to give an opportunity to submit explanation before imposing penalty - Apex court confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal = UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .......APPELLANTS VERSUS R.P.SINGH ......RESPONDENT= 2014 (May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41544

›
     Service matter - Non supply of UPSC Advise report before imposing penalty is void - charges framed against delinquent - denied - Enqui...