IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.829 of 2000 Date of Decision 26.03.2010 Garja Singh ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS U.T., Chandigarh ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Hemant Bassi, Advocate, Standing Counsel, for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This petition is directed against the judgment dated 20.07.2000, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 19.08.1998, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The allegations against the petitioner are that the sample of milk, taken from the him on 07.09.1988, when sent for analyst, was found to be deficient by milk solids not fat to the extent of 14%. However, milk fat was found as per prescribed standard. The petitioner was charged, tried and ultimately convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Admittedly, in this case, milk fat not found less whereas deficiency in the milk solids not fat was found as 14%. Even otherwise, on Criminal Revision No.829 of 2000 -2- scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was found or detected which may render the judgment as invalid. As such, the findings returned by the Courts below, do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1988. The petitioner has already suffered a lot on account of protracted proceedings pending in the Courts for about 20 years. He has already undergone more than 2 months of the substantive sentence. There is nothing on the record that he had repeated the offence during the pendency of the proceedings. He is a poor man and was 55 years old at the time of occurrence. Now he must be in the evening of his life. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 26.03.2010 mamta-II