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.
Cr. Appeal
CNR: RJBD010006672019
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
568/2019
Filing Date
15-02-2019
Registration No
39/2019
Registration Date
15-02-2019
Court
DJ ADJ Bundi HQ
Judge
4-ADJ II
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Appeal Allowed, Cross Objection Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kalu Ram
Adv. Surendra Narayaniwal
Respondent(s)
State Advocate - Public Prosecutor
Hearing History
Judge: 4-ADJ II
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 23-01-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 10-12-2025 | Final arguments | |
| 19-11-2025 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts