Allowed

Prashant Vitthal Sherigar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Jan 2018APPR/1/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court allowed the suspension of a six-month sentence imposed for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The court considered the applicant's bail status during the trial and appeal and granted release on bail pending revision.

What did the court decide?

Suspended the sentence of imprisonment and directed the applicant to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with sureties.

Prashant Vitthal Sherigar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

appr-1-18.doc

¶2

rpa 1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2018 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.17 OF 2018

¶5

Prashant Vithal Sherigar .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶6

Mr.Shantanu R. Phanse, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms.V.S. Mhaispurkar, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶7

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶8

DATED : JANUARY 15, 2018.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

This is an application for suspension of sentence imposed by the trial Court by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara vide judgment and order dated 7^th October, 2009, passed in RCC No.92 of 2009. The applicant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of six months for an offence punishable under Section 7(iii) read with Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Rules, 1955 read with Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1962 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1954. The applicant was implicated as accused no.1.

¶11

rpa 2/3 appr-1-18.doc

¶12

2 Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is not the owner of the hotel premises and he was only working in the said hotel. The accused were also convicted for not having appropriate licence for conducting the hotel business for which the applicant cannot be held liable. It is further submitted that the panchas has not supported the prosecution case. Learned APP opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is submitted that there is a concurrent finding by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and, therefore, the application may be rejected.

¶13

3 Considering the submissions advanced by the applicant, at the instance of applicant and considering the fact that applicant was on bail during the trial as well as during the pendency of Appeal and taking into account that the applicant has awarded imprisonment of six months, the application for suspension of sentence can be allowed.

¶14

4 Hence, I pass the following order:

¶15

:: O R D E R ::

¶16

(i) Pending the Revision Application, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Chief Judicial

¶17

rpa 3/3 appr-1-18.doc Magistrate, Satara in R.C.C.No.92 of 2009, which is confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Satara in Criminal Appeal No.111 of 2009 vide judgment and order dated 4^th December, 2017, is suspended and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;

¶18

(ii) Criminal Application stands disposed of.

¶19

( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Prashant Vitthal Sherigar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Vitthal Sherigar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajrang Ganu Kamble (Since Deceased) through Lrs Smt. Suvarna Bajrang Kamble and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr. Gregory Roberts . Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. .

Ravindra Ramchandra Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mrs. Vinaya Laxmikanth Prabhu Vs Mr. Ramanna Vithal Shetty and Anr.

Kartik Kirtikumar Parekh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mrs. Vinaya Laxmikanth Prabhu Vs Mr. Ramanna Vithal Shetty and Anr.