O.C.G.A. § 26-2-41 (2019)
Prosecution of violations; notice to defendant prior to institution of criminal proceeding
It shall be the duty of each prosecuting attorney to whom the Commissioner reports any violation of this article to cause appropriate proceedings to be instituted in the appropriate court without delay and to prosecute the same in the manner provided by law. Before any violation of this article is reported to any prosecuting attorney for the institution of a criminal proceeding, the person against whom such proceeding is contemplated shall be given appropriate notice and an opportunity to present his views before the Commissioner or his designated agent orally or in writing, in person, or by attorney, with regard to such contemplated proceedings.
History
Ga. L. 1956, p. 195, § 7.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1910, § 2101, are included in the annotations for this Code section. Jurisdiction of federal court to enjoin wrongful confiscation of food products and prosecutions for violating former Code 1910, § 2101 (see now O.C.G.A. § 26-2-22), see Baltimore Butterine Co. v. Talmadge, 32 F.2d 904, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1244 (D. Ga. 1929), aff’d, 37 F.2d 1014, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2695 (5th Cir. 1930) (decided under former Code 1910, § 2101). Indictment sufficient. - Indictment charging that the defendant unlawfully sold “adulterated food,” in that defendant sold to a named person “a portion of an
animal, to wit, a diseased cow, unfit for food, that had died otherwise than by slaughter,” was not subject to demurrer (now motion to dismiss) because of failure to show compliance with statutory provisions as to examination of food by or under the direction of the state chemist. Evitt v. State, 23 Ga. App. 532, 98 S.E. 737, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 186 (1919) (decided under former Code 1910, § 2101). Indictment not subject to demurrer (now motion to dismiss) because of failure to show how or in what way the portion sold was unfit for food, or was diseased, or what kind of product of the diseased cow was sold. Evitt v. State, 23 Ga. App. 532, 98 S.E. 737, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 186 (1919) (decided under former Code 1910, § 2101).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 35A Am. Jur. 2d, Food, § 63 et seq.
C.J.S. 36A C.J.S., Food, § 49 et seq.
ARTICLE 3 MEAT INSPECTION Cross references. Disposal of diseased, disabled, or dead animals generally, § 4-5-1 et seq. RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 35A Am. Jur. 2d, Food, § 31.
PART 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS