Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2001. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2001. Date of Decision : 6.10.2009. Pardeep ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Goripuria, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated January 31st, 2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat whereby, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated December 12, 1989 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana convicting the revisionist-accused under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Food Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation, was upheld. 2. On May 27th, 1993, Food Inspector along with Doctor C.D. Sharma, Medical Officer, Community Health Centre (Government Hospital), Gohana intercepted the revisionist-accused near State Bank of Patiala in Gohana. He was carrying 10 kgs cow milk in a bucket for public sale. The Food Inspector purchased 750 mls milk for analysis after serving notice upon the accused on payment of Rs.3.75 paise vide receipt (Exhibit PB). The milk purchased was divided and poured in three clean and dry bottles in equal parts. The bottles were stoppered, labelled, squarely fastened in strong and thick paper separately in accordance with the Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2001. 2 prescribed procedure. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst Haryana Karnal in accordance with the rules. The Public Analyst vide his report (Exhibit PH) opined that the contents of the sample were deficient in milk solid not fat by 1.5 per cent, that is, milk solid not fat was found 7 per cent against the prescribed standard of 8.5 per cent. The milk was found adulterated. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stated at the outset that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction on merits and confines his arguments only regarding quantum of sentence and prayed that the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone, or the sentence of imprisonment may be converted into fine. It was also submitted that in case the revision petition is dismissed, the revisionist will have to serve out the sentence in respect of the incident which had taken place about 16 years back. 4. The important point of law involved in the present revision is as to whether less than the minimum prescribed sentence should be awarded to the vendor where the milk is found to be adulterated and he was convicted. 5. Section 16 of the Act expressly provides that when the offence is proved under Section 16(1)(a) to (g) of the Act, then the convict in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of Section 6, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. 6. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has sought sustenance from (i) Braham Dass vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1988(2) RCR (Criminal) 184; (ii) Sawan Mal vs. State of Haryana 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 975; (iii) Ramesh Kumar vs. G.F.I. 2009(2) (Criminal) 185. 7. In Braham Dass's case (supra), the offence was committed in July, 1980. The trial concluded some time before 1984. The appellate Court acquitted the accused and in appeal against Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2001. 3 acquittal the High Court convicted the accused in circa 1987, and the accused filed Special Appeal in the Supreme Court in the year 1988. While disposing of the appeal the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant but on the question of sentence held as follows :- "Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant had been acquitted by the trial Court and High Court while reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the appellate Judge has not made clear reference to Clause (f). The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing the remaining period of the sentence, though ordinarily in an anti-social offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the Court should take strict view of such matter." 8. In that case, the accused had already suffered a part of the imprisonment. It was a case of adulteration of Masur for which no standard was prescribed. However, clause (f) of Section 16 of the Act was attracted. Although the sentence was reduced to one already undergone yet, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that ordinarily in an anti-social offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Court should take strict view of such matter. 9. In Sawan Mal and Ramesh Kumar' s case(supra) , it appears that notice has not been taken of a Full Bench judgment of this Court State of Haryana vs. Yad Ram 1987(1) RCR (Criminal) 264. 10. The question is no more res integra. A similar question arose before the Full Bench of this Court in Yad Ram's case (supra) way back in 1986 and the question was answered by Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2001. 4 observing as under:- "In a case under Section 16 of the Act, the sentence cannot be awarded below the minimum provided by the Proviso to that section. The language of the proviso is unambiguous and clear. It nowhere indicates that the minimum punishment provided in it can be further scaled down. When the statute has fixed the minimum sentence, no court can even for adequate and special reasons further reduce it than the one given in the Act itself. If such a thing is permitted then the policy of the strict punishment or the concept of minimum punishments to check the growth of the criminal activities under the Act is likely to be defeated. The concept of minimum sentence is not new to our legal system, but is very old. Quite a few offences under the Penal Code carry minimum punishments. The recent trend in criminal law is in favour of harsh, deterrent as well as for prescription of minimum punishments for some offences, which are hazardous to the society. Whenever and wherever the legislature in cases like economic offences and the criminal offences affecting the health of the society thinks that the sentence has to be harsh so that it pinches the offender and acts as a deterrent, then it provides for it. Any legislative measure for harsh and severe punishment has to be strictly enforced. For the enforcement of mandate of a statute, leniency on the basis of soft ideas of an officer presiding a court before which a criminal is tried should not have any weight. When the legal Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2001. 5 provision is in a mandatory form and prescribes the doing of an act in a particular way may be by passing a sentences, then it has to be done only in that manner and not in any other way. This is how the legislative measures in the matter of visiting the accused convicted under Sections 7/16 of the Act with minimum sentences are to be enforced by the Courts. Also, from the history of the amendments made in the Act the legislative intent becomes manifest that the legislature has every time gone in for stringent, hash and strict measures in providing the punishments to the breakers of the law under the Act. In these days of inflation, every one, including the persons dealing in food articles, is motivated by the profit incentive to indulge in various nefarious activities and anti-social acts. Every day new techniques of money spinning by questionable means are adopted for marketing and selling to the consumer adulterated, misbranded and spurious food articles. Crime detectors are making efforts to detect adulteration in food, which is increasing alarming. By experience offence injurious to the public health are being identified and stricter and harsher punishment are provided in accordance with the gravity of the situation". 11. In State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Vinay Nanda, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 532, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the mandate of law is clear and unambiguous, upon conviction the Court has no option but to pass the sentence as provided under the statute. 12. In another judgment State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2001. 6 vs. Amar Singh 2005 AIR (SC) 3818, the accused was convicted by the trial Court under Section 16 (1)(a) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine Rs.4000/-. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the Sessions Court, on appeal being preferred by the accused. Thereafter, the accused filed a revision application before the High Court which maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to 21 days and enhanced the fine from Rs.4000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The State filed appeal by Special Leave before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only plea raised by the counsel for the appellant-State was that under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, minimum sentence of one year imprisonment has been prescribed and no discretion has been given to the Court to reduce the same. Accepting the plea of the State Counsel it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the High Court committed an error in reducing the imprisonment from less than the minimum period prescribed under the statute. The appeal was allowed. The impugned order qua the sentence was set-aside and sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded by the trial Court were restored. 13. In view of the clear ratio of the aforesaid cited cases, there is no escape from the conclusion that where minimum sentence is prescribed by the statute, it cannot be reduced to a lessor term in the shape of reducing the sentence to the period already undergone nor the substantive sentence, made mandatory by the statute can be converted into sentence of fine only. 14. Considered from any angle whether the intention of the legislature or the good of the society, there cannot be digression from the mandate that where minimum sentence is prescribed by the statute, a diluted or a lessor sentence cannot be awarded. The question of law is, therefore, answered accordingly. 15. In view of above, the revision fails and is dismissed, the conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below are maintained. The revisionist is on bail. His bail/surety bonds are Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2001. 7 cancelled. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remainder of the sentence. Learned trial Magistrate is directed to comply with this order under intimation to this Court. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 6.10.2009 SN Note:- Whether refer to reporter : Yes/No