https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434139 Prosecution for alleged food adulteration was held barred by limitation because cognizance was taken after the governing one-year period from disclosure of the offence by the public analyst report. Police investigation into a non-cognizable offence without the Magistrate's authorization required by the criminal procedure code was unauthorized and vitiated the proceeding. The special procedure and safeguards under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act prevailed over the general penal process, so those protections could not be bypassed. The proceeding against a director who had joined the company only after the alleged sampling incident was unsustainable. The criminal revision succeeded and the proceeding was quashed as an abuse of process. en-us Fri, 23 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Feb 2023 06:44:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434139 Prosecution for alleged food adulteration was held barred by limitation because cognizance was taken after the governing one-year period from disclosure of the offence by the public analyst report. Police investigation into a non-cognizable offence without the Magistrate's authorization required by the criminal procedure code was unauthorized and vitiated the proceeding. The special procedure and safeguards under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act prevailed over the general penal process, so those protections could not be bypassed. The proceeding against a director who had joined the company only after the alleged sampling incident was unsustainable. The criminal revision succeeded and the proceeding was quashed as an abuse of process. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434139