Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1235 of 1999
PETITIONER:
STATE OF HARYANA
RESPONDENT:
SATISH KUMAR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/02/2005
BENCH:
B.P. SINGH & ARUN KUMAR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(With office report )
WITH CRL.APPEAL NO. 1236 of 1999
(With office report)
Date: 23/02/2005 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. SINGH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
For Appellant(s) Ms.Avneet Toor, Adv.
For Mr.D.P.Singh, Adv.
Mr Vinay Kumar Garg,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Dr.Sumant Bharadwaj, Adv.
Mr.A.C. Jain, Adv.
Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed judgment.
(Sheetal Dhingra) (Vijay Dhawan)
Court Master Court Master
[Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1235 OF 1999
STATE OF HARYANA Appellant (s)
VERSUS
SATISH KUMAR Respondent(s)
WITH CRL.APPEAL NO.1236/1999
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
B.P. SINGH,J.
We have heard counsel for the appellant State and also perused the order of the
High Court.
In a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred
to as ’the Act’) the High Court after considering the evidence on record found that the
prosecution has not been able to make out a case under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with Sectio
n 7 of
the Act. It accordingly allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondent.
We have gone through the material on record and heard counsel for the appellant.
We find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal.
These appeals are, therefore, dismissed.