M/S. NAMBUTHIRIES PICKLE INDUSTIRES v. UNION OF INDIA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
these Original petitions are dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH SUBRAMANIAN SRI.T.A.SHAJI SRI.V.GOVINDAN SRI.SREEDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------
UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NEW DELHI. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. DIRECTOR, FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROCESSING, MINISTRY OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPLIES, PANCHASHEEL BHAVAN, KHEL MARG, NEW DELHI. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. FOOD INSPECTOR, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM. FOOD INSPECTOR, ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.RAGHUNATH, ADDL.CGSC BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2008, ALONG WITH OP. NO.4449/1998 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.26255/1998 ORDER ON CMP. NO.44433/1998 IN OP. NO.25255/1998
Operative part
25.07.2008 SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN , JUDGE DISMISSED PETITIONERS EXHIBITS APPENDIX EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE SPECIFICATION FOR ''OIL PICKLES'' LAID DOWN BY F.P.O. APPEARING IN CHAPTER XVII OF THE FRUIT PRODUCTS ORDER 1955. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE LABEL FOR LIME PICKLE IN OIL. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE PUBLIC ANALYST REPORT IN ST. 45/95 FILE OF THE CHIE JUDL. IST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P3(a):- COPY OF THE PUBLIC ANALYST REPORT IN ST. 661/95 OF JUDL. IST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALUVA. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE EPO LICENCE NO.1859, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN ST. 45/95 OF THE CHIEF JUDL. MAGISTRATE'S COURT, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN ST. 661/95 OF THE JUDL IST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, NO.1, ALUVA. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== O.P.Nos.25255 and 4449 of 1998 ====================================== Dated this the 25th day of July 2008 JUDGMENT The issue raised in these Original Petitions is covered against the petitioners by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in George Issac v Union of India (2004(2) KLT 644). Following the said decision, these Original petitions are dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of the original petitions will not stand in the way of the petitioners from raising all defences available to them in the trial in the event of their being prosecuted for offences, if any, alleged to have been committed by them under the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/ P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. O.P.Nos.25255/1998 & 4449/1998 JUDGMENT
25.07.2008
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: these Original petitions are dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 25 Jul 2008. The bench was P N RAVINDRAN, P A P N RAVINDRAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.