Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Badri Vs. State of Rajasthan

Badri vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Nov 14, 1977
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/765815

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Criminal Jail Revision No. 242 of 1977
Subject
Food Adulteration

Case Summary

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

Prevention of Food - Adulteration Act, 1954--Sections 7 & 16--Sentence--Incident 4 years old--Accused under went substantive sentence--Held, it is proper case to reduce sentence to already undergone.;Revision partly allowed -

Key legal issue
Food Adulteration

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Badri

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1977WLN(UC)562

Excerpt

prevention of food - adulteration act, 1954--sections 7 & 16--sentence--incident 4 years old--accused under went substantive sentence--held, it is proper case to reduce sentence to already undergone.;revision partly allowed - v.p. tyagi, c.j.1. this revision from jai filed by accused badri is directed against the judgment of the sessions judge, bundi dated 26-7-77 whereby the sentence awarded by the trial court of the petitioner under section 7/16 of the prevention of food adulteration act was reduced from one years to six months r.i. but the fine of rs. 1000/- was maintained.2. the petitioner's submission is that the petitioner was caught selling the adulterated milk in the mouth of january, 1973 and since then he has been facing the proceedings in the criminal courts. he also submits that the accused has already undergone substantive sentence of three months and 20 days. he, therefore, contends that the ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence of the petitioner is curtailed to one already undergone.3. the learned public prosecutor, however, has no objection if the request of the petitioner is accepted by this court.4. in the circumstances of this case t think it proper to reduce the sentence from six months to one already undergone. the sentence of fine is however, maintained. the petitioner is in jail he shall be released forthwith it not required in any other case.5. the revision application is therefore partly allowed.

Full Judgment

V.P. Tyagi, C.J.

1. This revision from Jai filed by accused Badri is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Bundi dated 26-7-77 whereby the sentence awarded by the trial court of the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was reduced from one years to six months R.I. but the fine of Rs. 1000/- was maintained.

2. The petitioner's submission is that the petitioner was caught selling the adulterated milk in the mouth of January, 1973 and since then he has been facing the proceedings in the Criminal Courts. He also submits that the accused has already undergone substantive sentence of three months and 20 days. He, therefore, contends that the ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence of the petitioner is curtailed to one already undergone.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, has no objection if the request of the petitioner is accepted by this Court.

4. In the circumstances of this case t think it proper to reduce the sentence from six months to one already undergone. The sentence of fine is however, maintained. The petitioner is in jail he shall be released forthwith it not required in any other case.

5. The revision application is therefore partly allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial