Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Daljeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision against conviction for preventing food sample. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. lower courts convicted based on corroborated testimony. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. petitioner challenges sanction, license, and liability. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. fi and witness testimonies corroborated by admissions. (Para 19 , 20 , 24 , 25 , 27) |
| 6. section 313 statement lends credence to prosecution. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 26) |
| 7. refusal and threats constitute prevention offence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 21.01.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2013 and order of sentence dated 28.09.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present r
Revisional jurisdiction limited; no re-appreciation of evidence absent perversity in concurrent findings. Refusal to provide food sample with threats constitutes prevention under PFA; person present ....
Compliance with mandatory sampling protocols is crucial under food safety laws; lapses in procedure undermine prosecution's burden of proof, potentially leading to acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that statutory provisions must be strictly interpreted, and non-compliance with procedural requirements may not necessarily invalidate the prosecut....
The Food Inspector failed to establish the necessary jurisdictional facts for sampling, resulting in the acquittal of the accused due to reasonable doubt.
Conviction upheld for selling adulterated food, emphasizing mandatory health standards and procedural compliance in food safety regulations.
The failure to comply with mandatory sampling procedures under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act raises reasonable doubt and undermines the prosecution's case.
Procedural non-compliance does not warrant acquittal unless it results in demonstrable prejudice; the evidence confirmed the adulteration of food.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and undue delays can justify leniency in sentencing, even when evidence supports conviction.
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
