Back
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Ram Avatar Goenka, S/o. Sri Nathmal Goenka – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Arun Dev Choudhury, J.)
1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. The present criminal revision petition under Section 401 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is filed assailing a Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati in C.R. Case No. 2726c/2004, whereby the accused petitioners were convicted under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1954) and the petitioner No. 1 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to pay fine, Simple Imprisonment for another 1 (one) month and the petitioner No. 2 company was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-only. The further challenge is Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2008, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
3. Referring to the decision o
The court ruled that beneficial amendments in law can be applied retroactively to modify sentences in ongoing cases.
The court ruled that beneficial amendments in law can be applied retroactively to pending cases, modifying the sentence accordingly.
The court ruled that beneficial amendments in law can be applied retrospectively to pending cases, modifying sentences accordingly.
(1) Quantum of punishment – There is no prohibition, for this Court to impose a lesser punishment which is now applicable for same crime.(2) There is no provision for imprisonment – When an amendment....
The court emphasized the right to a speedy trial and modified the sentence based on the lengthy duration of the case and the petitioner's circumstances.
The court emphasizes the right to a speedy trial and modifies the sentence for justice based on the lengthy legal process involved.
The defence of bona fide purchasers under Section 19 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is available only if the accused proves that they purchased the adulterated food from a duly....
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
