Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Gopal Lal Sharma – 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 09.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No. 222/2019, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 17.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bhilwara in Regular Criminal Case No. 912/2011 (320/2010) convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and under Rule 50(1) R/o Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of PFA 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 Addl. R.I. For violation of Rule 50(1) of PFA Rules, the learned trial court also awarded the same sentence.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 30.08.2010 the Food Inspector Sanjay submitted a complaint before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bhilwara to the effect that on 23.02.2010, he inspected the
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 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.
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 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 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
