Kalu Ram vs State Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 39/2019

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374. Disposed: Contested--Appeal Allowed, Cross Objection Allowed on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Appeal

CNR: RJBD010006672019

Filing Number

568/2019

Filing Date

15-Feb-2019

Registration No

39/2019

Registration Date

15-Feb-2019

Court

DJ ADJ Bundi HQ

Judge

4-ADJ II

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Appeal Allowed, Cross Objection Allowed

Last updated 05-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Kalu Ram

    Adv. Surendra Narayaniwal

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Advocate - Public Prosecutor

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    Plaint/Petition/AppealmemoView PDF

    Case Summary The Rajasthan High Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi) partially allowed the appeal filed by Kailuram against his conviction under the Food Adulteration Prevention Act, 1954, Section 7/16 and Rule 50/16. While upholding the conviction, the court modified the sentence by replacing the original imprisonment of 6 and 3 months with a monetary fine of ₹2,000 (₹1,000 each for both offenses), considering that this was the appellant's first offense, he had been undertrial for 16 years, and he was 70 years old—factors making him eligible for benefits under the newer Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ II

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  5. 23-Jan-2026

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  6. 10-Dec-2025

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  7. 19-Nov-2025

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  8. 20-Sep-2025

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  9. 11-Jul-2025

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  10. 17-May-2025

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  11. 09-Apr-2025

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  12. 25-Feb-2025

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  13. 24-Jan-2025

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  14. 14-Nov-2024

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  15. 04-Oct-2024

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  16. 08-Aug-2024

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  17. 18-Jun-2024

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  18. 15-May-2024

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  19. 12-Apr-2024

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  20. 06-Dec-2023

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  21. 02-Aug-2023

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  22. 05-Apr-2023

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  23. 17-Jan-2023

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  24. 20-Oct-2022

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  25. 24-Jun-2022

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  26. 26-Apr-2022

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  27. 03-Mar-2022

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  28. 28-Sep-2021

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  29. 19-Apr-2021

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  30. 15-Jan-2021

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  31. 14-Sep-2020

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  32. 09-Jun-2020

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  33. 05-Mar-2020

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  34. 21-Sep-2019

    Final arguments

    ADJ II

  35. 15-Feb-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  36. 15-Feb-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. 39/2019

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Rajasthan High Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi) partially allowed the appeal filed by Kailuram against his conviction under the Food Adulteration Prevention Act, 1954, Section 7/16 and Rule 50/16. While upholding the conviction, the court modified the sentence by replacing the original imprisonment of 6 and 3 months with a monetary fine of ₹2,000 (₹1,000 each for both offenses), considering that this was the appellant's first offense, he had been undertrial for 16 years, and he was 70 years old—factors making him eligible for benefits under the newer Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case