Criminal Revision No.253 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.253 of 2000 Date of Decision:17.07.2009 Rajinder Pal .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. S.K.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.2.2000 rendered by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 20.5.1998 rendered by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal whereby he convicted and sentenced Rajinder Pal accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as `the Act'). Shortly put, facts of the prosecution case are that on 7.11.1990 at about 2:00 P.M, Shri C.L. Sikri, Food Inspector inspected the shop of the accused and found him in possession of 800 litres of sarson oil contained in 4 or 5 big drums for public sale. The Food Inspector introduced himself and Criminal Revision No.253 of 2000 -2- demanded a sample of sarson oil and also prepared notice on Form VI. Angered on this, the accused started shouting loudly saying that he was fed up with the government because sometimes the officials of Income Tax Department and at other times of the Sales Tax Department are visiting his shop and harass him and that he would not give sample at any cost and he ran away from the shop after using filthy language. The aforesaid Food Inspector as well as the Medical Officer waited for about one hour but he did not turn up. Consequently, the complaint was lodged against the accused on the allegations that he had prevented the Food Inspector from taking sample. The accused was charged under Section 16(1)(c) of the Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. On close of the prosecution evidence, when the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he denied all the allegations appearing in the prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence. In his defence, he examined one witness. After hearing the learned Government Food Inspector, the learned defence counsel, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. Being undaunted and dissatisfied therewith, he has moved this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Realising that he would not be able to persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the findings returned by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction recorded by both the Courts below in any manner. On Criminal Revision No.253 of 2000 -3- analysing and scrtunising the prosecution evidence with due care and caution, it transpires that no exception can be taken to the findings returned by both the Courts below. Sequelly, the conviction is maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been facing the agony of trial since 1990 and that being so, the sentence may be reduced to the already undergone. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone 1 month and 6 days of the actual sentence. In re: Radhey Shyam Aggarwal v. State N.C.T. Delhi, 2009(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 973 (Supreme Court), the accused was convicted and sentenced to 15 months rigorous imprisonment under Food Adulteration Act. The incident being 20 years old, the sentence was reduced to the already undergone (one year). In the instant case, the petitioner while on bail during pendency of the revision did not make misuse of this liberty. It is apt to be borne in mind that herein the sample was not drawn and the complaint has been lodged merely under Section 16(1)(c) of the Act. The State can be compensated in monetary terms. Keeping in view the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the already undergone (1 month and 6 days). The fine imposed by the learned trial Court upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. The difference of fine shall be deposited by the petitioner in the trial Court within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. If the petitioner failed to deposit this amount within the aforesaid period, this Criminal Revision No.253 of 2000 -4- revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the trial Court itself being the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps to send the petitioner to jail to serve the unexpired period of his sentence. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the successor Court of Mr. Satish Ahlawat, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal. July 17, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No