Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Devi Lal – 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 29.05.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 83/2001, whereby learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 20.04.2001 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in Criminal Original Case No. 127/1994 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 1 month's RI. The petitioner was also sentenced by the trial court for the breach of Rule 50(1) of Food & Adulteration Rules and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 15 days' RI.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 06.04.1993, in the morning at about 7:45 AM, Food Inspector, Chittorgarh apprehended the petitioner in front of Meera Hotel while the petitioner was going to sell milk by a motor-cy
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 modified the sentence to time already served due to the lengthy trial and the petitioner's circumstances.
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 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 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 the period already undergone, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the petitioner's age.
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
