IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.937 of 2003 Date of Decision : March 08, 2010 Randhir Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate Ms. Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the allegations that the sample of Ladoo taken from him on 14.7.1990 at 1.30 P.M. at bus stand Israna was found to be adulterated as the same contained prohibited yellow coal-tar dye, which was not included in the list of permitted colours. Vide judgment and order dated 24/25.2.1999, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat convicted the petitioner for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 10.4.2003 by maintaining his conviction and sentence. He then filed the present revision which was admitted on 24.7.2003 and he was ordered to be released on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner. However, he submits that the petitioner is Criminal Revision No.937 of 2003 -2- facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1990. He is a poor person, who has to look after his family consisting of six daughters and two sons. He is the only earning hand in his family. Moreover, the petitioner has already undergone a period of about 3½ months in jail out of the sentence of one year imposed upon him. Therefore, substantive sentence of the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone by him. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, stated that the petitioner deserves no leniency in the matter of sentence as this would encourage the like-minded persons in the society to indulge in adulteration of food items. In Parshadi V State of Haryana 2004(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 360, the sentence of a similarly situated accused, who stood convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was reduced to that already undergone by him as he had been facing the trial for a period of fourteen years. However, his fine was enhanced. While doing so, the Court relied upon a number of judgments viz Mahavir V. State through Govt. Food Inspector, 2000(4) RCR(Crl.) 208, Behari Lal V. State of (U.T.) Chandigarh, 2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 222, Des Raj V. The State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR 689, Vijay Kumar V. The State of Haryana 1996(2) RCR(Crl.) 554 (P&H), Mohinder Singh V. State (Chandigarh Administration), 1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 168 (P&H) and Satpal V. State of Haryana, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 15 (P&H). In Narinder Kumar V. State of Haryana 2008(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 288, this Court, once again, reduced the Criminal Revision No.937 of 2003 -3- sentence of a similarly situated convict to that already undergone by him as the occurrence pertained to the year 1984. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, besides the various judgments rendered by this Court as mentioned above, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, so as to serve his remaining sentence. On the other hand, ends of justice would be amply met if substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him and the fine of Rs.2,000/- imposed upon the petitioner enhanced to Rs.12,000/-. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. The fine of Rs.2,000/- is enhanced to Rs.12,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The enhanced amount of fine be deposited by the petitioner with the trial Court within three months from today. But for the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S.MANN ) March 08, 2010 JUDGE satish