Partly allowed

Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Mar 2010CRR/679/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court reduced the petitioner's sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone due to prolonged incarceration but enhanced the fine to Rs.5,000/- conditional on deposit within two months.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced to period undergone; fine enhanced to Rs.5,000/- payable within two months; failure to pay leads to original sentence execution.

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Punjab & Haryana HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.Revn. NO.679 of 2003

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl.Revn. NO.679 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: 03.03.2010

Mohinder Singh

...PETITIONER

VS.

State of Punjab

...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL

¶11

PRESENT: Mr.Karambir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Raghbir Singh, Seniior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶13

MOHINDER PAL, J.(Oral)

¶14

Petitioner Mohinder Singh was convicted by the trial Court under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition.

¶15

At the time of arguments, comprehending that the case of the prosecution against the petitioner stood proved beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the conviction. However, he stated that keeping in view the facts that the

¶16

Crl.Revn. NO.679 of 2003

¶17

¶18

occurrence relates to 02.08.1996; that the petitioner was sentenced on 16.11.1999 by the trial Court and his appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 20.01.2003; that he remained incarcerated for four months and three days; and that Sword of Damocles had remained hanging over his head for more than thirteen years, lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence.

¶19

Consequently, conviction of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act is maintained. However, keeping in view the facts stated above, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in sending the petitioner to jail again at this stage. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.5000/-. I order accordingly by modifying the sentence order. The petitioner will deposit the amount of fine in the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say, if the petitioner fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine of Rs.5,000/- in the trial Court within the period stipulated above, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment as awarded by both the Courts below shall remain unaltered.

¶20

With the above conditional modification in the sentence order, this petition is dismissed.

¶21

March 03, 2010 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE

Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab

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

Hardial Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhi @ Sukhwinder Singh Vs State of Pb.

Sneh Lata Vs Charanjit Singh

Daulatia Vs State of Haryana

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Tirath Singh Vs Pbstate