nAn accused, charged with shooting at a victim and causing injuries, was convicted under the Arms Act and Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to five years? rigorous imprisonment and fine. While upholding the conviction, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reduced the years of imprisonment and increased the fine amount. The informant preferred appeal challenging reduction of custodial sentence. The accused contended that being 60 years of age and belonging to the same village as the informant, it was likely that the issue would create disturbance in their village. The Supreme Court held that undue sympathy would undermine public confidence in the efficacy of law and that the high court was not justified in reducing the sentence (Surjit Singh vs Nahara Ram).

Petitioners had used the term ?non-fruit? on vinegar labels in compliance with the Fruit Products Control Order (FPO). Prosecution was initiated against the petitioner as the labels did not contain the term ?synthetic? as required under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (PF). The Kerala High Court held that labelling had been made under FPO issued under the Essential Commodities Act (EC) that provides that where there is inconsistency with any other Act, orders under EC would prevail. Prosecution cannot be initiated merely because ?non-fruit? on the label is used in compliance with FPO (Achamma vs Union of India).

A travel agent filed a writ petition challenging a decision whereby passport authorities had reduced the number of applications to be filed by recognised agents from 20 to two per day. The agent succeeded before a single judge of the Karnataka High Court. The division bench allowed the appeal by the Union of India holding that the decision had been taken to prevent fraudulent activities. Moreover, travel agents never had statutory rights for application and were granted such facilities under a manual (Union of India & Anr vs Eskay Tours and Travels).

SOLON