Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J
Birbal Ram – Appellant
Versus
State – 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 11.07.2005 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Phalodi in Criminal Appeal No.03/2005, whereby the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal against the judgment dated 10.02.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi in Criminal Case No.126/1998 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- 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 16.12.1997 at about 11 O’clock Food Inspector P.C. Harsh took samples of milk from the shop of the petitioner. After following due procedure, the samples were sent for examination and the same were found to be adulterated.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and upon d
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 a food adulteration conviction due to the petitioner's age and lengthy trial, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental; prolonged legal proceedings can justify leniency in sentencing.
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 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 emphasizes the right to a speedy trial and modifies the sentence for justice based on the lengthy legal process involved.
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
