Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Pooran Mal – 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 13.10.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta in Criminal appeal No. 4/2001 (Old No. 24/2000), whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 16.09.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta City in Criminal Case No. 215/1996 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six months' R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo two months' additional imprisonment.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 20.10.1996 the complainant Food Inspector inspected the drum containing milk which was being carried by the petitioner on his motorcycle. Upon a suspicion, he purchased 750 ML milk on payment of Rs. 7.50 to the petitioner. Thereafter, at the same time, a notice on form No. 6 was given to the petitioner regarding sam
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 emphasizes the right to a speedy trial and modifies the sentence for justice based on the lengthy legal process involved.
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
