Back
AMAN CHAUDHARY
Amar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and sentencing under food adulteration laws. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's plea for sentence reduction. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. right to fair and speedy trial considerations. (Para 8 , 9 , 12) |
| 4. judicial compassion in sentencing. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. modification of the sentence while upholding conviction. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Aman Chaudhary, J.
Present revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.03.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2002 rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month for the offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act').
2. The facts relevant to the present case are that on 29.5.2009 accused Amar Singh was intercepted by Govt. Food Inspector with Dr.Iqbal Singh, at near bypass Pehowa Road, Kaithal, having in possession about 70 liters of cow milk cont
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 time already served due to the lengthy trial 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 reduced the sentence to time already served, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the petitioner's lack of prior offenses.
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 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 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 modified the sentence for a food adulteration conviction due to the petitioner's age and lengthy trial, emphasizing the right to a speedy 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
