Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1974CriLJ1107
E.K. Moidu, J.1. The respondent in each of the petitions has been convicted under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954) -- hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' -- and the respondent in the first of the two petitions was released on admonition under Section 3, and the respondent in the other petition was released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Central Act 20 of 1958), without awarding any sentence. The State has filed these two revision petitions questioning the impropriety and illegality of the order.2. The Food Inspector in the first case purchased gingili oil from the respondent and it was found to be adulterated on analysis by the Public Analyst. The purchase of gingili oil, the procedure adopted by the Food Inspector in sampling and the final result of the analysis by the Public Analyst were not disputed, On analysis it was found that the standard of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1975(8)WLN988
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This is an appeal by the accused appellants against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Took at Jaipur dated 12-12-1974, whereby Naihulal, Kesharlal, Mittha and Pooran Nath were convicted under Section 323 I.P.C., and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment; and Jagdish was convicted under Section 304, Part. II I.P.C. and sentenced to six mouths' rigorous imprisonment.2. The accused-appellants Mitthu, Nathulal, Kesharlal and Pooran Nath have filed a compromise with the legal bests of Nathu injured and his widow Met Kanti Devi. Vide proceedings dated 4-8-1975, it was ordered that this compromise shall be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal.3. As regards the accused appellant Jagdish is concerned, it was contended that he was a student studying in secondary, and was below 20 years of age. It was also contended that he was on bail during the pendency of the trial. The accused appellant Jagdish is in custody since 12-12-1974 as a res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986WLN(UC)145
Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. The Judical Magistrate No. 2, Sri Ganganagar by his judgment dated May 19, 1985 convicted the accused petitioner Sarjeet Singh for the offence under Sections 54 (a), 54 (c) and 54 (d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on the first count, one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two months for the second count and six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on the third count. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. An appeal was filed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar by his judgment dated November 18, 1985 maintained the conviction and sentences awarded by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sri Ganganagar. Hence this revision.2. Mr. Mridul Jain, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: Crl.Rp.No.936/2009 Is Filed Under Section 397 Read With Section 401 Cr.P.C. Praying To Set Aside The Order Of Conviction And Sentence Dated 23.07.2005 Passed By The Learned Xvii Addl., Cmm, Bangalore In C.C.No.2536/1993 For The Offence P/U/S 420, 477-A, 201 Ipc And Confirmed By The Xxxii Addl., City Civil and Sessions And Special Judge For Cbi Cases, Bangalore, By His Judgment And Order Dated 08.09.2009 In Crl.A.No.1125/2005. Crl.Rp.No.937/2009 Is Filed Under Section 397 Read With Section 401 Cr.P.C. Praying To Set Aside The Order Of Conviction And Sentence Dated 23.07.2005 Passed By The Learned Xvii Addl., Cmm, Bangalore In C.C.No.2537/1993 For The Offence P/U/S 420, 477-A, 201 Ipc And Confirmed By The Xxxii Addl., City Civil and Sessions And Special Judge For Cbi Cases, Bangalore, By His Judgment And Order Dated 08.09.2009 In Crl.A.No.1126/2005.) Common Order 1. Since these two revision petitions are filed by same person, who was accused in two criminal cases and since commo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1983CriLJ13
M.M. Puncchi, J.1. These three appeals, being Criminal Appeals Nos. 304-SB, 333-SB and 334-SB of 1980, have been filed at the instance of the State of Punjab seeking enhancement of sentence. These are against three separate judgments and orders of Shri Gurdev Singh, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Moga. Since a common question of law has been raised therein, it could be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. Yet their facts have to be separately detailed, which are done hereafter.2. In Criminal Appeal No. 304-SB of 1980, respondent Harbans Lal was being prosecuted for offence under Section 337, Indian Penal Code, before the said Magistrate. The allegations against him were that on 24-11-1977 he had driven his bus No. PUF-5360 rashly and negligently so as to cause hurt to two persons namely, Sukhdev Singh and Atma Singh; to the latter by striking against his tractor. Some formal prosecution evidence had been led at the trial. On 16-1-1980, when further prosec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973CriLJ1443; 1973()WLN401
L.S. Mehta, J.1. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on November 1, 1968, at about 8.30 p. m., Prabhu Narain P. W. 3, Gopal, P. W. 4, Radhey Shyam, P. W. 5, Mohan Lai, P. W. 6 and Ram Chander (deceased) were passing through Chaura Rasta, Jaipur City. On their taking a turn towards Tarkeshwarji's temple, some 8 to 10 persons confronted them near Jadiyon-ka-Rasta in front of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. There accused Bhairon prevented Ram Chander and others from proceeding ahead. In the meantime 7 or 8 other persons, including accused Madan, Shri Ram, Aziz, Jagdish and Gopal appeared on the spot. They were armed with sticks. Shri Ram assaulted Prabhu with a hockey-stick. That weapon was subsequently grabbed by Prabhu. Thereafter accused Gopal and Madan assaulted Gopal Lai Yadav P. W. 4. The latter sustained certain injuries. Then accused Aziz inflicted a lathi blow on Gopal's head. The victim fell down. Soon after Shri Ram waived his knife. He wanted to thrust it into Gopal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : I(1991)ACC5
S.S. Grewal, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dated 9-7-1990, whereby, the conviction under sections 279 and 304A I.P.C. as well as the sentence imposed by the trial Court on the present P.2. petitioner under Section 304A I.P.C. for 9 month R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1, 000/- or in default thereof to undergo R.I. for one month, was upheld.2. In brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, are that on 24-3-1985, at 2.00 P.M. the petitioner who was driving bus No. CHW-3579 came from behind and struck against the rickshaw driven by Ram Asra PW. As a result of the said collision the right rim of the rickshaw get bent and the passengers including Pushpa Devi fell down. Pushpa Devi who received injuries was immediately shifted by the petitioner in the same bus to P.G.I. Chandigarh shortly after the accident. Pushpa Devi, however, died as a result of the said accident in the P.G.I. on the same night This petition w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi791
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) Ram Murti and Pyare Lal respondents were tried in the court of Shri R.P. Punjab Magistrate First Class, Delhi. on the charge under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The trial Magistrate found both the respondents guilty of the offence charged with an sentenced the first respondent to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1.000- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, and the second respondent to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2.000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. Both the respondents, dissatisfied with their conviction and sentence went in appeal to the Sessions Judge. The appeal was heard by Shri Muni Lal Jain. Addl. Sessions Judge, on 9th June. 1966. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal of both the respondents and quashed their conviction and sentence. The Municipal C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC381; 1971CriLJ311; (1970)2SCC454; [1971]1SCR833
K.S. Hegde, J.1. In these appeals by special leave, we are only concerned with the question of sentence. The respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1967 are not represented though they were served with the notice of the appeal.2. The question of sentence in this case has assumed considerable importance. In order to assess that question, it is necessary to refer to the incidents that led up to the prosecution of the respondents. The respondents in both the appeals were prosecuted in case No. 254 of 1964 in the court of Sessions for Greater Bombay. They were charged with various offences. These respondents were members of a Union known as B.E.S.T. Union. In about the middle of August of 1963, that Union declared a strike. B.E.S.T. is running bus services in the city of Bombay. As a result of the declaration of the strike several workers struck work. It appears that some of the workers disregarded the call for strike and continued to work. On the third day of the strike when a single d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1956All326; 1956CriLJ659
Desai, J. 1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur recommending that an order passed by a Judicial Officer be set aside and that the opposite party be awarded such sentence as this Court may consider proper.2. There is no controversy about the facts which are that the opposite party Sheo Shankar Lal misappropriated an amount of Rs. 15/5/11 in his capacity as Sajawal. He pleaded guilty to the charge under Section 409, I. P. C., and also refunded the misappropriated amount. He has been convicted by the Judicial Officer under Section 409, I. P. C., but on account of his being a young man of 18 years of age he has been released on probation under Section 4, U. P. First Offenders' Probation Act.The learned Sessions Judge, on being moved by the District Magistrate, has referred the case to this Court with the recommendation that the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 4, U. P. First Offenders' Probation Act be set aside and that the opposite party be sentence...
Tag this Judgment!