Criminal Revision No. 2043 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2043 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.5.2010 Rajiv Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 vide judgment dated 12.3.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari. Vide order of the even date, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed vide judgment dated Criminal Revision No. 2043 of 2007 (O&M) 2 16.10.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari. . Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “2. The prosecution case originated from a complaint filed by Shri C.L. Sikri, the then Government Food Inspector (GFI) who inspected the premises of the appellant on 27.8.1994 at about 5.30 p.m. where he was running a shop by the name of M/s Rajiv Provision Store. He was found in possession of 10 kgs. of turmeric powder for public sale, which was kept in an iron drum. A sample was demanded by the GFI vide notice Ex.PA in the presence of witness Suraj Parkash, 450 gms. of the powder was purchased and receipt Ex.PB was issued. The powder was mixed with the help of a karchhi with a long handle gently and properly and after doing so, the sample was separated which was in turn divided into three equal parts and sealed in three bottles as required by the relevant rules. The report of the Public Analyst was obtained and since the sample did not conform to the requirements of its chemical contents, the complaint was filed.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment Criminal Revision No. 2043 of 2007 (O&M) 3 and has prayed that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Risala v. State of Haryana, (O&H) 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 239, wherein it was held that since the petitioner had suffered protracted trial of 24 years, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence as already undergone. However, the sentence of fine was enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was a previous convict. The sample of turmeric powder was drawn on 27.8.1994. Since then the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment is reduced to already undergone by him and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months. Non deposit of fine shall render this revision petition as dismissed. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE May 11, 2010 anita