IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2081 of 2004 Date of Decision 11.10.2010 Jaswinder Kumar ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, and Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 29.09.2004, passed by Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 04.02.2000, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 16(i)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955. Allegations against the petitioner are that he was found having in his possession 15 litres of adulterated cow's milk, contained in a drum, for public sale. Sample was drawn, after making it homogenous, put into three dry and clean bottles and necessary preservative was also added. The bottles were properly wrapped, stoppered and sealed with the seal of Local Health Authority and one bottle was sent for analysis. On receipt of the report of public analyst to the effect that the milk so purchased was not according to the prescribed standards as laid down under the rules, complaint was filed against him. After recording the preliminary evidence, notice was issued to the petitioner to which he denied as incorrect. The complainant led further evidence. The petitioner was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Opportunity to lead defence was also given. Criminal Revision No.2081 of 2004 -2- Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, some leniency on the quantum of sentence has been sought. Even otherwise, on 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 illegal. As such, these findings 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 1994; the petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony on account of the pendency of proceedings in the Courts for the last sixteen years; the sword of sentence remained hanging over his head since then; he has already undergone three months and ten days of the substantive sentence, however, keeping in view the seriousness of the offence, entire sentence awarded against him cannot be wiped off but some reduction could be made. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to six months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, for compliance. Amicus Curiae may claim the remuneration from the competent authority as per rule. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 11.10.2010 mamta-II