Held that while maintaining the conviction for offences under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants, and their bail bonds are discharged.
Appellate conviction maintained; sentence reduced to period already undergone; bail bonds discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 497/1989
Champa Lal And Anr
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Karan Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
11/07/2022
“It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal of the appellants may kindly be allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court vide its judgment dated 29.11.1989 may be set aside and the appellants may be acquitted of all the charges framed against them. ”
(2 of 3) [CRLA-497/1989]
Commodities Act), Jalore in Criminal Case No.7/87, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced to undergo one year’s R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of which they were ordered to further undergo one month’s R.I.
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)
“ There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. ”
Haripada Das (Supra)
“…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered
(3 of 3)
[CRLA-497/1989]
both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…”
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
10-NS/suraj/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the sentence awarded for offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 should be substituted with the period of detention already undergone by the appellants.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of MaharashtraExplained¶22
(2012) 2 SCC 648 · Who else cites this
Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B.Explained¶22
(1998) 9 SCC 678 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Champa Lal And Anr
State
Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
