AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 267 wordsK.P.S. Sandhu, J.
The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/, in default R.I. for four months under section 16 (1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the learnedSubDivisional Judicial or Magistrate, Narwana, vide his order dated 4.3.1982. The appeal was carried to the Court of Session where it failed substantially inasmuch as that his sentence was reduced from R.I. for one year to R.I. for six months. The petitioner came up in revision to this Court. The same was admitted by M.M. Punchhi, J. vide his order dated August 4, 1983 and since then the petitioner is on bail.
Mr. Bhoop Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has not addressed me on merits. He submits that the petitioner was less than 20 years of age at the time of the commission of offence: that the offence was allegedly committed in the year 1981 and since then he is facing the order of trial and that he is on bail under orders of this Court since August, 1983. He prays that leniency in the sentence is called for. I feel no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to jail at this stage. It is a fit case where awarding of the minimum sentence prescribed under the law should be dispensed with. Consequently, I reduced his sentence to one already undergone. However, the sentence of fine and sentence in lieu thereof, would remain undisturbed. But for this modification, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.