Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Jai Gopal S/o Shri Sher Singh, by caste Arora – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the judgment dated 17.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.289/2012, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 29.06.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No.404/1999 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo one year simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,200/-and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo fifteen days' SI.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 27.03.1995 the Food Inspector Sarwan Singh Barad inspected Kake Da Hotel at Bus Stand Gadarkheda where PW.2 Keval Krishan (servant at the hotel) was present and food licence for the year 1995 was not found. Upon a suspicion, he purchased 600 gms. wheat flour on payment of Rs.3/-to PW.2 Keval Krishan. Thereafter, at the same time, a notice on form No.6 was given to PW.2 Keval K
The court upheld the conviction for food adulteration but modified the sentence to time already served due to the lengthy trial and the petitioner's circumstances.
The court modified the sentence for a food adulteration conviction due to the petitioner's age and lengthy trial, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial.
The court upheld the conviction for food adulteration but modified the sentence to reflect leniency due to the petitioner's age, lack of criminal history, and the prolonged nature of the trial.
The court upheld the conviction for food adulteration but reduced the sentence to time already served, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the petitioner's lack of prior offenses.
The court emphasizes the right to a speedy trial and modifies the sentence for justice based on the lengthy legal process involved.
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 right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and undue delays can justify leniency in sentencing, as seen in the modification of the petitioner's sentence to time already served.
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
