Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
SWAROOPA RAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
ORDER :
1. By way of filing the present revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C, the petitioner-accused has challenged the order dated 26.09.2005 in Cr. Original Case No.500/1997 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi, District Jodhpur whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months simple imprisonment and the order dated 08.02.2007 passed by the learned Add. Sessions Judge, Phalodi, District Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.16/2005 whereby the judgment of the trial court has been affirmed.
2. As per prosecution, on 11.03.1997 the samples of milk were taken from the petitioner who is a milk vendor in the presence of the witnesses Jagdish Narayan and Gusai Lal. The same were sent for examination to the Public Analyst after duly following the procedure provided under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Public Analyst in its report has found the milk samples to be ’Adulterated’.
3. On the basis of the report of the
The court upheld the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but reduced the sentence to the period already served due to the lengthy trial and circumstances surrounding the case.
The court upheld the conviction for food adulteration but reduced the sentence to the time already served due to the prolonged 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 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 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 main legal point established is the application of legal provisions related to evidence, presumption, and the applicability of amended laws to the case.
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.
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
