Decided on March 08,2013

Harshdev Gangwar Appellant
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents


- (1.) By means of the present criminal revision, convict-revisionist has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 14.09.2012, whereby criminal appeal preferred on his behalf was dismissed and the order dated 29.06.2011 passed by learned trial court in criminal case no. 537 of 2009 was affirmed. Learned C.J.M. Champawat vide order dated 29.06.2011 convicted the accused on three counts, viz., (a) under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 whereby he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5000/-; (b) under Section 19 of Seeds Act, 1966 whereby he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; and (c) under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 whereby the convict was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- .
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted at the very outset that he has nothing to say on the merits of the case. Learned counsel contended that he has come to the Court with the sole prayer that the sentence awarded to the convict-revisionist be reduced. Learned counsel also prayed that the fine imposed by the trial court has already been deposited by the revisionist in the court below. The convict-revisionist also remained in jail during the course of trial for a period of four months, according to learned counsel.
(3.) In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the revisionist, the conviction of the revisionist as regards the offences complained of against him is affirmed. Otherwise also, on the basis of evidence on record, there appears to be no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.