IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1757 of 2004 Date of decision: February 16, 2010 Surat Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State (U.T. Chandigarh) .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Himat Bassi, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 19.8.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 1.12.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 7 (1) read with Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein referred as 'the Act'). Factual matrix of the case is that on 4.3.1998, Food Inspector Vireshwar Singh inspected Red Cross Canteen in P.G.I. Chandigarh and the accused was found in possession of 10 liters of un-indicated milk for public sale. After disclosing his identity, he was served a notice on Form VI and purchased 750 mls of un-indicated milk. The milk so purchased was divided into three equal parts and after adding required preservative was put into three dry and clean bottles. The bottles were then property wrapped, stoppered and paper slips were affixed. The seal of the Public Health Authority was also affixed. Sample was sent to Public Analyst Haryana for analysis who vide its report Ex.PD reported that the sample contained 1.1% milk fat and 7.3% of milk solids not fat which were deficient to the tune of 82% and 19% respectively. After following the due Criminal Revision No. 1757 of 2004 -2- procedure, complaint against the accused was presented in the court. After recording pre-charge evidence, the accused was summoned and charged under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution led sufficient evidence and ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. At the very outset, without assailing the conviction awarded against the accused, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he being first offender; having faced the agony of the protracted proceedings since 1998 pending against him, and having undergone about one month and few days out of the substantive sentence, deserves some leniency on the quantum of sentence. He has relied upon the judgments delivered in case Mahaavir vs. State through Govt. Food Inspector, 2000 (4) RCR (Criminal) 208 so also Manoj Kumar vs. State of Haryana 1988 (1) RCR 563 in this regard. Notwithstanding the fact that right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished right guaranteed under the Constitution. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. But, the Constitution never wanted to allow the criminals to go scoot free if some procedural delays are caused on the part of the accused or on the part of the court. However, the protracted trial could be considered as a mitigating circumstance for extending some leniency on the the quantum of sentence. Reliance if any could be placed on the judgment delivered in case Mahabir vs. State of Haryana, 1997 (3) RCC 469, wherein it was observed as under :- “The facts indicate that incident pertains to more than 14 years ago. The short question that thus arises for consideration is as to, “whether it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to undergo the rest of the sentence?” There is no over- emphasizing the fact that speedy trial which is the essence of the justice has been lost. A reference of some the precedents in this regard would make the position clear. In the case of Criminal Revision No. 1757 of 2004 -3- Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 (2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 67, 11 years had expired before the revision petition was decided. Keeping in view the inordinate delay, the sentence was reduced to one already undergone. The same question again was considered by this Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar v. State (U.T.) Chandigarh, 1994 (1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 58. Therein the sample had been taken in the year 1984. 9 years had expired by the time the revision petition was heard. Once against the sentence was reduced to the one already undergone. The view point of the Delhi High Court is the same in the case of Vir Singh Chauhan v. State (Delhi), 1994 (2) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 253. When the revision came up for hearing, 7 years had expired. Learned Singal Judge of the said Court reduced the sentence to the one already undergone. Before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Jannalal v. The State of M.P. 1995 (1) Prevention of Adulteration Cases 78, the same vew prevailed.” While relying upon the aforesaid judgment, again learned Singal Bench of this Court in case Puran Mal vs. State of Haryana, 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 527 considered the long pendency of the trial, agony faced on account of the protracted criminal proceedings, as good ground for reduction of the sentence , therefore, it would be expedient in the interest of justice and peculiar circumstances of the case to maintain consistency with the aforesaid judgment. In the present case also, the occurrence took place way back in the year 1998 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. He has already undergone about one month and few days of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Criminal Revision No. 1757 of 2004 -4- Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by him. However, the fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- which shall be paid by him within three months, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed. February 16, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge