Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1978 Supreme(Raj) 278

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
C.Honniah, J.
K. Naru - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 188 of 1978.
Decided On : 1-08-1978

For the Petitioner:N.P. Gupta and K.S. Channan, Advocates.
For the Respondent: H.N. Kall, Public Prosecutor.

The court considered the ownership of the oil and the ends of justice in reducing the sentence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

Headnote:
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Conviction under section 7/6 - Reduction of sentence based on ownership of oil and ends of justice
Fact of the Case:

The accused was convicted under section 7/6 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to imprisonment and fine for adulteration of oil.
Finding of the Court:

The court considered the ownership of the oil and the ends of justice, and reduced the sentence to the period already served, confirming the fine.
Issues: Ownership of the oil, ends of justice
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the ownership of the oil and the circumstances warranted a reduction in the sentence to meet the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, but the sentence was modified to the period already served, and the accused was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

JUDGMENT

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The accused was convicted under section 7/6 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default sentence.

3. The only point urged in this case is that the accused is a small oil merchant having a country oil crusher being run by labour. The person who gave the til seeds has given evidence that he was there when the sample was taken and that the til oil belonged to him. In these circumstances, I feel that the ends of justice will be met by reducing the sentence to the period already and gone which is about a week. The sentence of line is confirmed. One month time is granted to pay the fine, if it has not been deposited.

4. The accused petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. With this modification in sentence, the revision petition is dismissed.Revision petition dismissed.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1978 Supreme(Raj) 278

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTC.Honniah, J.K. Naru - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentCriminal Revision No. 188 of 1978.Decided On : 1-08-1978

The court considered the ownership of the oil and the ends of justice in reducing the sentence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
C.Honniah, J.
K. Naru - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 188 of 1978.
Decided On : 1-08-1978