Crl.Revision No.1102 of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.1102 of 1997 Date of decision: 10.9.2009 Janga Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.B.S.Saroha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Godara, DAG, Haryana. ... JORA SINGH, J. Janga Singh filed this revision to impugn the judgment dated 19.11.1997 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. Vide this judgment, appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.5.1995 passed by JMIC, Sonepat, was dismissed. As per the judgment and order dated 26.5.1995 of JMIC, Sonepat, the petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short `the Act’), and was sentenced to undergo RI for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 13.9.1985 at about 6.00 AM, Food Inspector P.L.Narwal along with Dr. Pawan Chaudhary had intercepted the petitioner while he was carrying 16 kgs. of mixed milk in a drum for public sale. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity had served a notice in writing and purchased 660 mls. of mixed milk after mixing the whole contents properly and made uniform for analysis against payment of Rs.3/- vide receipt (Ex.PB). The milk purchased was divided Crl.Revision No.1102 of 1997 2 into three equal parts and 18 drops of formaline were added as preservative in each bottle. Bottles were stoppered, tagged and securely fastened, wrapped and sealed as per law. Spot memo (Ex.PC) was also prepared. One sealed bottle along with Form VII with specimen impression of the seal used to seal the bottles was sent to Public Analyst and other copy of the memo along with the seal impression was sent by registered post to Public Analyst, Haryana. Two sample bottles along with Form VII were deposited with the local health authority, Sonepat. Report of Public Analyst was to the effect that the milk solids not fat 7% deficient of the minimum prescribed standards. Vide order dated 22.8.1990, warrant case procedure was ordered to be adopted. Evidence was led by the prosecution. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the allegations of prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of the accused was that he was serving in Suraj Steel Factory. He was having litigation with the owner of that factory and at the instance of the owner of factory, he was implicated falsely in this case. On the relevant day, he was going to attend Satsang to be held at the place of Ramesh Gomcha. The milk was not for sale. Payment was not made to him for the milk purchased. His signatures were obtained on blank papers. He did not receive report of the Public Analyst including summons from the Court. Ultimately the trial Court opined that the accused had committed offence punishable under Section 16)1)(a)(i) of the Act and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment as aforesaid. Crl.Revision No.1102 of 1997 3 Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 26.5.1995, appeal was preferred but the appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 19.11.1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the occurrence was dated 13.9.1985. At that time, the petitioner was 42 years’ old. The petitioner is the first offender. He belongs to a poor family. The petitioner is to become hard criminal if again sent to jail to undergo imprisonment awarded to him. The petitioner has already undergone 20 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested that a lenient view may be taken. Learned State counsel argued that no objection if a lenient view is taken, but the petitioner be directed to deposit fine. I have gone through the evidence on the file. Statements of the Food Inspector and Dr. Pawan Chaudhary show that the petitioner was intercepted while carrying mixed milk. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity had served a notice in writing and purchased 660 mls. of mixed milk after mixing the whole contents properly and made uniform for analysis. The milk purchased was divided into three equal parts. Sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana. As per report of the Public Analyst, the sample was found to be adulterated. Food Inspector and the witness have categorically stated that the milk was made homogeneous before drawing the sample. Allegation of the petitioner is that he was going to attend satsang and was carrying the milk but the milk was not being carried for public sale. Only dispute is whether the milk was for public sale or the milk was being taken to satsang. No defence that the milk was being taken to satsang and not for public sale. Before the present occurrence, Food Inspector and other PWs had no enmity with the petitioner. If Crl.Revision No.1102 of 1997 4 signatures of the petitioner were obtained on blank papers by force, then there was no idea to remain silent. The petitioner was expected to send complaints to different authorities. Till today, no complaint to any authority. So, mere allegation of the petitioner that the milk was not for public sale is not sufficient to opine that the story is unnatural. Admittedly, occurrence is dated 13.9.1985. At that time, the petitioner was 42 years' old. The petitioner is a poor person. He is the first offender. He is to become hard criminal if again sent to jail to serve the sentence awarded to him. The petitioner has already remained in custody for 20 days. Ends of justice would be fully met if a lenient view is taken. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner is directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone (20 days) and to pay Rs.20,000/- as fine to be deposited within two months from today before the trial Court. In case of non-deposit of fine within two months by the petitioner, present petition would stand dismissed automatically. With the aforesaid modification, the revision being without merits is dismissed. 10.9.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE