Siya Ram v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Held that no manifest error or illegality was found to justify interference in the criminal revision appealing against conviction and sentence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
What did the court decide?
Revision dismissed; accused revisedists to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve sentence.
What the court decided
Court No. - 34 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 28 of 1991 Revisionist :- Siya Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- U.K.Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
- Called in revised. None appeared to press this revision. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.
- This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by the judgments and orders dated 06.07.1990 and 20.12.1990. Judicial Magistrate, Orai, District-Jalaun vide judgment and order dated 06.09.1991 convicted revisionists under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced them to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, there were further to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Thereagainst, revisionists preferred Criminal Appeal No.47 of 1990 and Appellate Court while dismissing appeal vide judgment and order dated 20.12.1990, upheld order of conviction passed by Trial Court. Being aggrieved the revisionists preferred present revision.
- Having gone through the record, I do not find any manifest error or otherwise illegality, procedural or otherwise, so as to justify interference in criminal revision.
- Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
- The accused-revisionists, Siya Ram and Radhey Shyam, are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall cause them to be arrested and lodge in jail to serve out the sentence passed against them. The compliance shall be prepared within two months.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether any manifest error or illegality justifies interference in the criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. in a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Siya Ram
- petitioner
Radhey Shyam
- respondent
State Of U.P.
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLR/28/1991
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court