Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J
Indraj, S/o Shri Ladhu Ram – 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 07.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar, in Criminal appeal No.22/2006, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated 31.03.2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar, in Criminal Original Case No.241/2002 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month’s SI.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 13.03.2002 complainant Food Inspector inspected the drums containing milk which was being carried by the petitioner on his motorcycle. Upon a suspicion, he purchased 750 ML milk on payment of Rs.6 to the petitioner. Thereafter, at the same time, a notice on form No.6 was given to the petitioner rega
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 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 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 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 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.
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
