Back
FARJAND ALI
Devi Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the criminal case and trial process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments for sentence reduction. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of the sentence context. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. modification of sentence to time already served. (Para 8) |
| 5. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
Farjand Ali, J.
By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 /401 of the CrPC, challenge has been made to the judgment dated 16.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Criminal appeal No.69/2002, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 15.10.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand in Criminal Regular Case No.105/1998 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 /16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo one year's simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 3 months'.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 13.08.1986, the Food Inspector inspected the shop M/s. Mada
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 time already served due to the lengthy trial and the petitioner's circumstances.
The court upheld the conviction for food adulteration but modified the sentence to the period already undergone, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the petitioner's age.
The court modified the sentence for food adulteration to the time already served, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the petitioner's lack of prior offenses.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental; prolonged legal proceedings can justify leniency in sentencing.
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 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 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.
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
