Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Surendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
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 06.02.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 3, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No. 199/2008 (55/2003), whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 14.05.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Regular Case No. 78/1996 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 (1-A)(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo one year's simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's S.I.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 02.06.1988 the Food Inspector Rajendra Prasad Vasudev submitted a complaint before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh to the effect that on 24.02.1988, he purchased some sweets (Laddu) for a consideration of Rs.15/- from the shop of Vijay Kumar Surendra Kumar, situated at Gurudwara Gali of Hanumangarh Junction. After follo
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.
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
