IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2652 of 2008 Date of decision: 9 th March, 2010 Mange Ram … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravish Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been preferred by Mange Ram son of Puran Chand. He was tried in a complaint preferred by the Govt. Food Inspector, Kurukshetra. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 16(1)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. The appellate Court below upheld the conviction, maintained the sentence and had dismissed the appeal. Criminal Revision No. 2652 of 2008 The facts of the case can be briefly noticed as under: On 28 th July, 1995 at 8.00 a.m. Daya Kishan Sharma, Govt. Food Inspector found the petitioner in possession of 25 kgs of cow milk stored in two drums. The milk was stored for public sale. The Govt. Food Inspector gave notice and purchased 750 mls of cow milk by making payment of Rs.6/-. A receipt to this effect was also executed. A sample of the cow milk was drawn for analysis after the whole milk was made uniform. The sample was bottled in three empty, clean and dry bottles. The entire procedure, in consonance with the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder regarding the sample, was followed. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst found that the milk fat was 37.5 percent deficient and the milk solid not fat was 46 percent deficient from the standards prescribed. The prosecution examined complainant Daya Kishan Sharma, Govt. Food Inspector as PW-1. Dr.M.K. Kaushal appeared as PW-2 and Radhey Shyam Clerk from the office of Public Health Authority as PW-3. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating circumstances were put to him. He denied the same and pleaded false implication. In defence, the accused examined Babu Ram as DW-1. Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has stated that in view of the findings of guilt recorded by learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court, he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of the petitioner. It is further submitted that both the courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of Daya Kishan Sharma Govt. Food Inspector PW-1 and Dr.M.K. Kaushal PW-2. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the present case, the sample was drawn in the month of July, 1995. The 2 Criminal Revision No. 2652 of 2008 petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial for about 15 years. It is stated that the petitioner has not committed any offence before or after the initiation of proceedings in the present case. It is submitted that at the time when the sample was drawn, the petitioner was aged 48 years, now he is about 63 years old and is the sole breadwinner of his family. Taking into consideration the protracted trial, especially the fact that petitioner is aged about 63 years and his antecedents, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence awarded upon the petitioner. This Court has dealt with the entire case law and noticed the consistent view taken by this Court in ‘Lajpat Rai v. State of Haryana’ 2010(1) RCR Criminal 311. Therefore, in view of the ratio of law noticed in Lajpat Rai’s case (supra) and submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months after receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall undergo the sentence awarded by the trial Court. With the modification in sentence, ordered above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 9, 2010 rps 3