https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293871 Cognizance of the same offence could not be taken twice on successive complaints under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, where the first complaint had already led to cognizance for the same incident. The complaint-case procedure under Sections 200, 202 and 204 CrPC could not be converted into a police-investigation mechanism by importing Section 173(8) CrPC to justify a later complaint against additional accused. Once the accused invoked Section 13(2) and the Central Food Laboratory report superseded the public analyst report, a fresh complaint founded on the superseded report was not maintainable. en-us Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Mar 2021 10:34:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293871 Cognizance of the same offence could not be taken twice on successive complaints under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, where the first complaint had already led to cognizance for the same incident. The complaint-case procedure under Sections 200, 202 and 204 CrPC could not be converted into a police-investigation mechanism by importing Section 173(8) CrPC to justify a later complaint against additional accused. Once the accused invoked Section 13(2) and the Central Food Laboratory report superseded the public analyst report, a fresh complaint founded on the superseded report was not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293871