Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
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 21.03.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2002 (30/A/97), whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 05.08.1997 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria in Criminal Case No. 325/1992 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's R.I.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 22.07.1989 Food Inspector Chiranjilal took samples of red chili powder from the shop of the petitioner. After following due procedure, the samples were sent for examination and the same were found to be adulterated.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and
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 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 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 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 emphasizes the right to a speedy trial and modifies the sentence for justice based on the lengthy legal process involved.
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.
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 right to a speedy trial is fundamental; prolonged legal proceedings can justify leniency in sentencing.
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
