%20(1).png)
R. v. Atanasi s/o Kawuwu, Crim. Rev. 161-D-67, 8/12/67, Hamlyn J.
Accused were convicted of buying controlled agricultural produce contrary to sections 13(1) and (2) of the Agricultural Products (Control and Marketing ) Act, Cap. 486, as amended by section 10(b) (ii) of the National Agricultural Products Board Act, 1964 Act No. 39. In addition to the imposition of fines, confiscation of the produce which had been bought was ordered.
Held: The Agricultural Products Board (Control and Marketing Act (sic) does not provide for the forfeiture of the produce. Confiscation order set aside and order issued that produce be restored or that payment be made for its value if it has been disposed of. [But see National Agricultural Products Board Act, 1964 (Acts 1964 No. 39), s. 5(1) (i); ----Editors.]
%20(10).png)
.png)
%20(1).png)
%20(1).png&description=R. v. Atanasi s/o Kawuwu, Crim. Rev. 161-D-67, 8/12/67, Hamlyn J.){kind=link}
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.