In "B. Govinda Rao and another v. V.N.
Ashokan" 2003 (2) FAC 123, a Single Bench of Kerala
High Court dealt with a similar question. The learned
Single Judge held that the expression "store" as used
in section 7 means "storing for sale" and consequently
storing an adulterated article of food for purpose
other than sale would not constitute offence under
section 16 (1) (a) of the PFA Act. The red cherries
kept in the store were not intended for sale in the
given case, and, hence, it was held that even though
the same were found adulterated, yet, conviction under
section 16 (1) (a) of the PFA Act was not possible.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 358 OF 1997
The State ofMaharashtra,
VERSUS
Shamsundar Ganeshlal Navandar,
[CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]
DATE OF JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED : 4th April, 2009
Citation; 2009 ALLMR(cri) 1654
Print Page
Ashokan" 2003 (2) FAC 123, a Single Bench of Kerala
High Court dealt with a similar question. The learned
Single Judge held that the expression "store" as used
in section 7 means "storing for sale" and consequently
storing an adulterated article of food for purpose
other than sale would not constitute offence under
section 16 (1) (a) of the PFA Act. The red cherries
kept in the store were not intended for sale in the
given case, and, hence, it was held that even though
the same were found adulterated, yet, conviction under
section 16 (1) (a) of the PFA Act was not possible.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 358 OF 1997
The State ofMaharashtra,
VERSUS
Shamsundar Ganeshlal Navandar,
[CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]
DATE OF JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED : 4th April, 2009
Citation; 2009 ALLMR(cri) 1654
