Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK GUPTA
Aditya Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Gupta, J.
Accused Aditya Kumar (petitioner herein) has been convicted by the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ['for short 'the PFA Act'] vide judgment dated 20.10.2007 in a complaint lodged by Government Food Inspector, Hisar. Vide a separate order dated 23.10.2007, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period for three months and further to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default sentence of one month in case of non-payment of fine, for committing the said offence. Fine was, however, paid. Appeal filed against the aforesaid conviction and sentence was dismissed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide his judgment dated 07.01.2010.
2. Against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision. Revision was admitted on 12.01.2010 and on the same day, the sentence of the petitioner was directed to be suspended during the pendency of this petition.
3. As per prosecution case, on 28.09.1999, Sh. Sham Lal Mahiwal, Government Food Inspector, Hisar accompanied by Dr. Ashok Chaudhary inspected t
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and undue delays can justify leniency in sentencing, even when evidence supports conviction.
The court reaffirmed that non-compliance with statutory provisions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act can lead to acquittal, emphasizing the accused's rights to challenge the prosecution's....
The court ruled that reports from non-specified laboratories under the PFA Act render prosecutions unsustainable.
The presumption of innocence and the requirement for compelling reasons to interfere with an acquittal were central legal principles established in the judgment.
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....
Criminal liability for food adulteration requires evidence of intent; marginal deviations due to natural causes do not justify conviction or prosecution.
Compliance with mandatory sampling protocols is crucial under food safety laws; lapses in procedure undermine prosecution's burden of proof, potentially leading to acquittal.
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
