Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. Chandrachud, CJI., V.D.Tulzapurkar, J.
Bhagirath
Versus
State Of M.P.
Case No., 29 of 1980
Date of Decision, 1/15/80
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 353 - Food Adulteration - Allegation Of No Corroboration - Heard counsel special leave granted - Having considered relevant evidence in case we are of opinion that courts below have taken an unduly severe view of matter - We do not feel disposed to interfere with order of conviction since three courts have held concurrently that an offence is made out - We therefore confirm order of conviction – Held, However hardly a case for imposing any sentence on appellant - He is alleged to have pushed food inspector an allegation of which no corroboration is available from contemporaneous record - Besides appellant was acquitted of charge under food adulteration act - We therefore set aside substantive sentence as also sentence of fine - We direct that appellant shall be released on a bond of good behavior portative for a period of one year - Bond shall be executed by appellant within four weeks from today in trial court - Appellant need not surrender to his bail - Order accordingly.
(1) HEARD counsel. Special leave granted.
(2) HAVING considered the relevant evidence in the case, we are of opinion that the courts below have taken an unduly severe view of the matter. We do not feel disposed to interfere with the order of conviction since three courts have held concurrently, that an offence under S. 353 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. We therefore confirm the order of conviction. This is, however, hardly a case for imposing any sentence on the appellant. He is alleged to have "pushed" the Food Inspector, an allegation of which no corroboration is available from the contemporaneous record. Besides, the appellant was acquilted of the charge under the Food Adulteration Act. We therefore set aside the substantive sentence as also the sentence of fine. We direct that the appellant shall be released on a bond of good behaviour optative for a period of one year. The bond shall be executed by the appellant within four weeks from today in the trial court. The appellant need not surrender to his bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
