Criminal Revision No.157 of 2001(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.157 of 2001(O&M) Decided on : July 02, 2010 Jagdish ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ravish Kaushik, AAG, Haryana A.N.JINDAL, J.- The accused – petitioner Jagdish (herein referred as `the accused') was tried under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity `the Act'). Consequently, vide judgment dated 22.12.1999, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gohana, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. His appeal was also dismissed on 31.01.2001. The case of the complainant is that on 27.08.1992, Ajmer Singh, Food Inspector Gohana visited the shop of the accused and found him in possession of five kilograms of `Kalakand' (a milk product) Criminal Revision No.157 of 2001(O&M) [2] contained in an iron tray. After serving notice Ex.PA, the Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of `kalakand' against payment of Rs.24/- vide receipt Ex.PB. After making the sample homogenous, it was divided into three equal parts and put into three dry, clean and empty bottles. Formalin was added as a preservative. The bottles were stoppered, labelled and wrapped in strong thick papers. A paper slip issued by the Local Health Authority was also pasted on the bottles and the same were sealed in accordance with the provisions of law. One sealed bottle along with a memorandum in form-VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Karnal for analysis. The remaining two samples were deposited with the Local Health Authority. Other necessary formalities were also completed. After receiving the report of Public Analyst (Ex.PH) to the effect that the higher Butyro-reflectometer reading at 40'C and slightly positive Bedouin test indicates contamination of vanaspati in the sample, complaint Ex.PJ was filed in the Court and notice Ex.PZ was sent to the accused informing his right for re-analysis. After evaluating the pre-charge evidence and finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was charged under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses in all. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. However, no evidence in defence was led. The trial ended in conviction of the accused and his appeal was also dismissed. Criminal Revision No.157 of 2001(O&M) [3] Arguments heard. Record perused. The records transpire that the Courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact regarding the guilt of the petitioner on proper appreciation of the evidence. PW1 Ajmer Singh, Government Food Inspector was accompanied by PW3 Dr.S.S.Malik, at the time of visit to the shop of the accused for taking sample. Dr.S.S.Malik is not subordinate to Ajmer Singh, and he has fully corroborated the case of the complainant, therefore, non-joining of independent witness in such a case cannot be said to be fatal to the complainant's case. Both these witnesses have deposed consistently about the time, place and the manner of the recovery of the adulterated food from the shop of the accused. PW2 Vijay Kumar Chopra is the Clerk posted in the office of the Local Health Authority, who proved all the formal proceedings taken by the Authority in the matter. In other words, there is no dent in the case of the complainant and the guilt of the accused is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Faced with the situation, learned counsel has sought indulgence of this Court by seeking leniency on the quantum of sentence. The occurrence in this case took place in August, 1992; the accused has already undergone more than two months of the substantive sentence and has also suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings for the last about 18 years. That apart, no bad antecedents of the accused have been brought on record, so as to dub him as habitual offender. In such circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things, if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him, without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Ordered accordingly. Criminal Revision No.157 of 2001(O&M) [4] However, it is made clear that the reduction in sentence shall be subject to deposit of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses, within three months from today. The petition is dismissed in the above terms. Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat for compliance. July 02, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE