CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2115 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 12, 2011 Virender Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurav Mohunta, DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner stands convicted for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, “the Act”). The allegation against the petitioner is that the milk in his possession was found adulterated because as per the report of Public Analyst, the sample contained 3.7% of milk fat and 8.2% of milk solids against the minimum specified limits of 4.0% and 8.5% respectively. On the basis CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2115 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: of evidence, the petitioner was convicted and sentence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act for a period of six months RI with fine of `1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further required to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence, which was also dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. As per the State counsel, the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence for which the petitioner has been convicted is six months RI, which can go upto a period of two years and Court can not award sentence less than six months, which is the minimum prescribed under the Act. In support, the counsel has referred to Siya Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 403. The counsel for the petitioner, however, has referred to the provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and has laid emphasis on the proviso to urge that if the offence is under Section 16 sub-clause (i) of clause (a) and is with respect to an article of food being a primary food, which is adulterated due to human agency or is with respect to an article of food which is misbranded within the meaning of sub-clause (k) of clause (ix) of Section 2, then the Court may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the judgement impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which may not be less then three months but which CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2115 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }: may extend to two years and with the fine, which shall not be less than Rs.500/-. The counsel for the petitioner, thus, appears to be justified in submitting that in cases where the offence is with respect to an article of food, which the milk is and it is a primary food, which again the milk would be, and if it is adulterated due to human agency, then the minimum sentence, for special reason to be recorded, can be for a period of three months. The milk being an article of food, which is primary food, would be covered under the proviso in the Section and the sentence for special reasons, thus, may be imposed upto three months. The submission by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was very negligible difference between the standards required to pass the test of milk being free from being adulterated. Against the required fat contents of 4.0%, the sample was found containing 3.7% milk fat whereas against the requirement of 8.5% milk solids, the milk recovered from the petitioner contained 8.2% milk solids. Counsel further contends that the petitioner has faced the agony of this trial for last eleven years. The counsel accordingly pleads that the Court may consider reducing the sentence to the period of three months, which would be the minimum and in the facts and circumstances of this case, minimum sentence of six months CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2115 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 4 }: can not be considered as a bar. This Court had earlier considered the provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act so far as it prescribes minimum period of six months sentence and so also the bar contained in the Act in the form of Section 20(AA) of the Act for grant of probation under the Probations of Offenders Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C. Reference was made to the cases of Ganesh Maity Vs. U.T., Chandigarh, 2003(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 418, Krishan Kumar Vs. State (U.T. Chandigarh), 2005 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 975 and Surjit Singh Vs. State (U.T. Chandigarh), 2005 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 583, where it is viewed that though minimum sentence is prescribed under the Act, yet the same can be reduced considering the long pendency of such proceedings. Following such precedents, this Court in Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana ( in Criminal Revision No.378 of 1993) decided on 3.7.2007, has observed as under:- “Would not this reveal violation of his life and liberty guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law, says Article 21 of the Constitution. This, Article, earlier construed narrowly as guaranteed against execution action unsupported by law has now been given new CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2115 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 5 }: dimensions by the Courts to say that it would impose limitation upon law making as well. Thus to pass the test of being a valid law/validly legislated law, it has to be a reasonable, just an fair as well as in addition to be being a validly legislated law. Assurance of a fair trial and a speedy conclusion of criminal trial is now recognized as part of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reference here can be made to Hussainara Khatoon and others Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, AIR 1979 SC 1360 and Kadra Pahadiya and others Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1982 SC 1167. Seen in this context, delay in disposal of criminal prosecution, which in the present case is nearly 27 years, would certainly be a valid consideration for passing any order in regard to the sentence in the present case. Such a course was adopted in the case of Ganesh Maity (supra). In the case of Krishan Kumar (supra), the accused was directed to be released on probation, though he was of 19 years of age, considering the fact that he had faced trial for 19 years. Similarly, in the case of Surjit Singh (supra), the sentence awarded to the accused under Section 16 of the Act was reduced CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2115 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 6 }: to a period already undergone on the ground that the accused had faced trial for nearly 20 years.” Considering all these facts, it is apparent that the petitioner has indeed suffered for the last nearly eleven years and accordingly case is made out for showing some leniency in the sentence awarded. The petitioner deserves the concession as is available to him under the proviso on this count and having regard to the gravity of the offence in this case. The petitioner has already undergone sentence of 3 months and 20 days. The sentence, therefore, deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. It is so ordered. The fine, however, as imposed shall remain intact. The revision, otherwise is dismissed. December 12, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE