Criminal Revision No. 126 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 126 of 2002 Date of Decision: 9.4.2010 Giri Raj …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present petition has been preferred by Giri Raj son of Sultan, who was prosecuted in the complaint filed by PW.1 Balwan Singh, District Food Inspector, Faridabad. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, vide its judgment dated 23.10.2000, held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “1954 Act”). However, vide its order dated 30.10.200 the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Criminal Revision No. 126 of 2002 2 Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, the petitioner had preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal, vide its judgment dated 10.1.2002, upheld the conviction of the petitioner, however, reduced the sentence of one year to that of nine months rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine and default clause were maintained. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 30.9.1993 at about 12.00 Noon, Balwan Singh, District Food Inspector, along with PW.3 Dr. Dara Singh, had intercepted the petitioner, and found in his possession 20 Kgs of buffalo milk, in a drum, meant for public sale. The District Food Inspector had purchased 750 mls. of buffalo milk by making a payment of Rs.7.50 ps. The milk, after mixing the whole contents, was bottled in three clean and dry empty bottles and one of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, vide his report Ex.PE, found the deficiency of milk fat as 75% and milk solids not fat as 21% of the minimum prescribed standards. After the receipt of report of Public Analyst Ex.PE, notice under Section 13(2) of the 1954 Act was issued to the petitioner. Balwan Singh, District Food Inspector, appeared as PW.1 and his testimony was corroborated by PW.2 Dr. J.M. Gandhi and PW.3 Dr. Dara Singh. Thereafter, the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he pleaded that he was not doing the work of selling milk and on 30.9.1993 he took the milk for his brother-in- law on his request as there was birthday party in his house. The said Criminal Revision No. 126 of 2002 3 fact was also disclosed to PW.1 Balwan Singh. Both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of PW.1 Balwan Singh, District Food Inspector, PW.2 Dr. J.M. Gandhi and PW.3 Dr. Dara Singh and held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the 1954 Act. A perusal of the testimony of PW.1 Balwan Singh, District Food Inspector, reveals that the same not only aspires confidence but gives minute details regarding the procedure followed for taking the sample. Both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence and returned the findings of fact regarding the guilt of the accused. No patent illegality or irregularity is discernible. The judgments of both the Courts below are neither perfunctory nor perverse. Therefore, in revision, this Court will not be in a position to set aside the well reasoned judgments. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that in the present case sample was drawn on 30.9.1993. He further submitted that the petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial of more than 16 years. He was taken into custody on 10.1.2002 and was released on bail by this Court on 24.1.2002. Therefore, the petitioner had undergone about 14 days out of nine months' sentence awarded to him. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Lajpat Rai v. State of Haryana 2010(1) Recent Criminal Reports 310 wherein this Court has noticed the entire case law, the judicial pronouncements of various Single Benches of this Court, taking Criminal Revision No. 126 of 2002 4 into consideration protracted trial as mitigating circumstance, had reduced the sentence to that of already undergone. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and ratio of law noticed in Lajpat Rai's case (supra), sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to that of already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Failure on the part of petitioner to deposit fine shall disentitle him to reduction of sentence. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 9, 2010 “DK”