Back
KULDEEP MATHUR
Ramesh Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
Kuldeep Mathur, J. - By way of filing the present revision petition, the petitioner-accused has challenged the order dated 24.01.2001 passed by the learned Add. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar whereby he has been convicted for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the order dated 04.08.2003 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Court, Sri Ganganagar in criminal appeal no. 65/2003 whereby the judgment of the trial court has been affirmed.
2. As per prosecution, on 27.03.1997 the milk samples were taken from the petitioner who is a milk vendor. The same were sent for report to the Public Analyst after duly following the procedure provided under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The public Analyst in its report has found that the milk samples so taken to be 'Adulterated'.
3. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, the petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. During the course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses and 16 documents were exhibited.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitt
The court upheld the conviction for food adulteration but reduced the sentence to the time already served due to the prolonged trial.
The court upheld the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but reduced the sentence to the period already served due to the lengthy trial and circumstances surrounding the case.
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 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 main legal point established is the application of legal provisions related to evidence, presumption, and the applicability of amended laws to the case.
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 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.
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
