Om Prakash @ Prem Chand Vs. State

Om Prakash @ Prem Chand vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 15, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/685437

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/685437
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Mar 15, 2004
Case Number: Crl. Rev. P. 57/2004
Subject: Criminal;Food Adulteration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401--Revision against the order of conviction under Section 7/17 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act--Convict an old man of 60 years who suffered ordeal of trial for 12 years--Sentence reduced to the period already undergone. -

Key legal issue: Criminal;Food Adulteration
Acts & sections: Food Adulteration Act - Sections 7 and 16

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Om Prakash @ Prem Chand

Advocate Sumeet Verma, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate V.K. Malik, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Food Adulteration Act - Sections 7 and 16
Reported In: 110(2004)DLT627; 2004(74)DRJ48

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, 1973 - sections 397 and 401--revision against the order of conviction under section 7/17 of prevention of food adulteration act--convict an old man of 60 years who suffered ordeal of trial for 12 years--sentence reduced to the period already undergone. - r.s. sodhi, j.1. this revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th august, 2003, of the learned additional sessions judge dismissing crl.a.no.1/2002 arising out of the order of the learned metropolitan magistrate, whereby the learned magistrate in two criminal complaint cases no. 8/93 and 80/93 held the petitioner guilty for an offence under section 7/16 provisions of food adulteration act and further vide separate order sentenced him to undergo ri for one year and a fine of rs.3000/- in each of the two cases but directed both substantive sentences to run concurrently.2. with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the state, i have gone through the record of the case as also the depositions and the judgment under challenge. learned counsel states that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction. i, thereforee, confirm the order of conviction. however, on the question of sentence, it is argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner has already undergone around seven months actual incarceration. he submits that the occurrence is of 1992 and the petitioner has already suffered the ordeal of trial for twelve years. he further submits that the petitioner is an old man of 60 years and that no useful purpose would be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. learned counsel for the state has no objection if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone.3. having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of what has been stated by learned counsel for the state, i am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone. i order accordingly.4. with this modification, criminal revision no. 57/2004 is disposed of.5. the petitioner is in jail. he shall be set at liberty forthwith.

Full Judgment

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th August, 2003, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Crl.A.No.1/2002 arising out of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate in two criminal complaint cases No. 8/93 and 80/93 held the petitioner guilty for an offence under Section 7/16 provisions of Food Adulteration Act and further vide separate order sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and a fine of Rs.3000/- in each of the two cases but directed both substantive sentences to run concurrently.

2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, I have gone through the record of the case as also the depositions and the judgment under challenge. Learned counsel states that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction. I, thereforee, confirm the order of conviction. However, on the question of sentence, it is argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner has already undergone around seven months actual incarceration. He submits that the occurrence is of 1992 and the petitioner has already suffered the ordeal of trial for twelve years. He further submits that the petitioner is an old man of 60 years and that no useful purpose would be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. Learned counsel for the State has no objection if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of what has been stated by learned counsel for the State, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone. I order accordingly.

4. With this modification, Criminal Revision No. 57/2004 is disposed of.

5. The petitioner is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2004 Same Parties Om Prakash @ Prem Chand vs State Same Subject Criminal;Food Adulteration Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J. Acts & Sections Food Adulteration Act - Sections 7 and 16

Criminal;Food Adulteration