RAMJEE PRASAD & ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR

RAMJEE PRASAD & ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR

The distinct ingredients and evidence required under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act make it prejudicial to the accused to convict them under a provision not originally charged; thus, appellants are acquitted.

Parties
Appellant: Ramjee Prasad; Appellant: Ramjee Prasad's co-appellant; Respondent: State of Bihar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Judgement and Order of the High Court in Revision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Food Adulteration, Conviction Under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
Criminal Law Food Adulteration Conviction Under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramjee Prasad

Appellant

Ramjee Prasad's co-appellant

Appellant

State of Bihar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Judgement and Order of the High Court in Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) can be imposed when earlier conviction was under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
  2. 2 Whether prejudice was caused to the accused due to change in nature of the offence

Ratio Decidendi

The distinct ingredients and evidence required under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act make it prejudicial to the accused to convict them under a provision not originally charged; thus, appellants are acquitted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders of the courts below set aside
  • Appellants are acquitted