Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Prem Prakash – 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 17.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Criminal appeal No. 47/2004, whereby the learned appellate court partly allowed the petitioner's appeal and while maintaining his conviction for offence under Section 7/16 R/w Rule 50(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, reduced the sentence from one years S.I. to six months S.I. along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 15 days' S.I., as passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur vide judgment dated 25.11.2004 in Cr. Original Case No. 149/2000.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 17.09.1999 the complainant Omprakash Kalla, Food Inspector took samples of cow milk from the shop of the petitioner. After following due procedure, the samples were analyzed and the same were found to be adulterated. Upon which, a complaint was presented against the petitioner.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the pet
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 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 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 time already served due to the lengthy trial and the petitioner's circumstances.
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.
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
