Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.25 seconds)Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Shree Mahavir Oil Mills & Anr vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 29 November, 1996
"19. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was
50 years of age at the time of recording of his statement under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and he would be, by now, fairly advanced
in the age, as also the fact that he has faced the agony of criminal
proceedings for the last more than 16-1/2 years, I am of the opinion
that the sentence awarded to him deserves to be reduced to that of
fine. For this view, I draw support from a judgment of the Supreme
Court in Sri Krishan Gopal Sharma and another v. Government
of N.C.T. of Delhi, 1996(2) RCR (Criminal 591: 1996(1)F.A.C. 258
(SC) and also from the judgments of Allahabad High Court in
Bhageloo v. State of U.P. and another, 1996(2) F.A.C. 199 and of
this Court in Mahavir v. State through Govt. Food Inspector,
2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 208 (P&H)."
Braham Dass vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 2 August, 1988
In Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988 (4)
SCC 130, the Supreme Court held as under:-
Chander Bhan vs Financial Commissioner, Haryana, ... on 3 November, 1981
Same view has been reiterated in Chander Bhan v. State of
Haryana 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 125; Sat Pal vs. State of
Haryana 1998(1) RCR (Criminal) 75; Ram Kishan vs. State of Haryana
2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 196; Krishan Kumar Narang vs. State (U.T.)
Section 7 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Mohinder Singh vs State (Chandigarh Administration) on 3 January, 1997
Again, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court
in Mohinder Singh vs. State (Chandigarh Administration), 1997-1
Vol.CXV (Punjab Law Reporter) 623, wherein it has been held as under:
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, Govt. Of ... on 12 February, 1979
"8. The last submission made in this regard was pertaining to
the sentence. It was argued that incident pertains to the year 1980
and the petitioner is facing the agony of a prolonged trial and
thereafter appeal and the revision, 16 years have elapsed. The
decision in the case of Hyssainara Khatoon and others v. Home
Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360 had set the law into
motion. The scope of Article 21 was extended and it was held that
expeditious disposal of the cases was an integral and essential part
of the fundamental right to life and liberty. In paragraph 5 it was
held:
State Of Bihar vs Ramdaras Ahir And Ors. on 6 August, 1984
'Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a
person of his liberty cannot be 'reasonable, fair and just' unless that
procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of
such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably
quick trial can be regarded as 'reasonable, fair or just' and it would
fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy
trial and by speedy trial, is an integral and essential part of the
fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21.'
The same question was considered by a Bench of the Patna
High Court in State of Bihar v. Ramdaras Ahir and others, 1985 Crl.
L.J. 584. It was concluded that the word 'trial' would bring within its
sweep, the appeal that would be pending against such an order. In
paragraph 17 the Court had held: