Skip to content


Mohan Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal;Food Adulteration
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1974
Judge
Reported in1974WLN(UC)163
AppellantMohan
RespondentState
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....agony. he has also undergone rigorous imprisonment for 1 month and 13 days. these are adequate and special reasons for which i am inclined to think that, in the facts and circumstances of this particular case, the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner and the fine of rs. 500/- imposed on him, will serve the ends of justice. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was..........for the petitioner is that relating to the sentence. he has argued that there were adequate and special reasons within the meaning of proviso (i) of sub-section (1) of section 16 of the act for imposing a lesser sentence.3. learned deputy government advocate has not controverted the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence of which the petitioner has been convicted falls within the purview of proviso (i) of sub-section (1) of section 16 of the act, and the question is whether there are any adequate and special reasons for imposing a lesser sentence4. in this connection, the facts which stand-out are that the petitioner is a hawker, this is his first offence under the act, and he has undergone more than 6 years of agony. he has also undergone rigorous.....
Judgment:

P.N. Shinghal, J.

1. Heard learned counsel. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- Under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by a judgment of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jalore, dated March 21, 1973 The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore has dismissed the petitioner's appeal against that judgment on December 3, 1973 and he has approached this Court by means of the present revision petition.

2. The only point which has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that relating to the sentence. He has argued that there were adequate and special reasons within the meaning of proviso (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act for imposing a lesser sentence.

3. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has not controverted the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the offence of which the petitioner has been convicted falls within the purview of proviso (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act, and the question is whether there are any adequate and special reasons for imposing a lesser sentence

4. IN this connection, the facts which stand-out are that the petitioner is a hawker, this is his first offence under the Act, and he has undergone more than 6 years of agony. He has also undergone rigorous imprisonment for 1 month and 13 days. These are adequate and special reasons for which I am inclined to think that, in the facts and circumstances of this particular case, the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner and the fine of Rs. 500/- imposed on him, will serve the ends of justice. To this extent the revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgment is modified. If fine is not paid, the petitioner shall undergo the sentence which has been awarded in fault of its payment.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //