Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Food Safety and Standards Act

Food Safety and Standards Act

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 – Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Section 52 – Misbranding – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but considered the new Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which provides for a lesser penalty for misbranding, leading to a reduction in the sentence – Appellant no.2’s sentence was converted to a fine, and appellant no.1’s fine was upheld – The appeal was partly allowed.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S A.K. SARKAR AND COMPANY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia…

Food Safety and Standards Act

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Section 3(1)(j) – The Supreme Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as it was filed by an interested party with a personal motive – The Supreme Court also held that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the board’s decision to procure cardamom from local sources in view of the urgency and the transparency – The Supreme Court directed the State Government to destroy the existing stock of prasadam in an appropriate manner.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD — Appellant Vs. AYYAPPA SPICES AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. )…

Food Safety and Standards Act I P C

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) – Sections 3(zz), 59 and 89 – Penal Code, 1860(IPC) – FSSA is a comprehensive and exhaustive legislation on all aspects of food and food safety, and that Section 89 of the FSSA gives an overriding effect to its provisions over any other law, including the IPC, in so far as the law applies to the aspects of food covered by the FSSA

Mar 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM NATH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…

Food Safety and Standards Act

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Sections 52 and 89 – Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section 16 – Penalty for misbranded food – Punishment under PFA and the penalty under the FSSA cannot be imposed on the violator for the same misbranding because it will amount to double jeopardy – in such a situation, in view of the overriding effect given to the provisions of the FSSA, the violator who indulges in misbranding cannot be punished under the PFA and he will be liable to pay penalty under the FSSA in accordance with Section 52 thereof.

Dec 17, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANIK HIRU JHANGIANI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF M.P. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw