CRIMINAL REVISION NO.570 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 07, 2011 Pardeep Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. P. K. Chugh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J. S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. While issuing notice of motion, this Court has observed as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per the Chemical Analyst, sample milk was containing 8.3% of milk solids against the minimum specified limit of 8.5%, however, milk was containing fat 7.2%, while minimum prescribed percentage of fat is 4%. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.570 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: Learned counsel has further argued that if fat is on the higher side then minor deficiency on the milk solids, will not make the milk adulterated. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter Gugan Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 951, as well as, in the case of Harwant Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2009(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 321. Notice of motion for 25.05.2011.” The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already undergone sentence of about one month out of the sentence imposed. However, counsel says that he will not now make submissions on merits and would be satisfied in case this Court consider the release of the petitioner on probation. Six months is the minimum sentence prescribed for an offence under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. However, the Full Bench of this Court in Joginder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1980 Punjab Law Reporter 585 has already viewed that this would not be a bar for considering the release of the petitioner on probation. As per the counsel, the variation was very slight and the conviction may have faulted on the ground that the sample was not stirred properly. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.570 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: Without going into the merits, case for release of the petitioner on probation is made out as he is a first offender. At the time of commission of offence, he was 32 years of age and now has faced the agony of trial for 10 years. It appears that the petitioner has suffered enough. The present revision is, thus, partly allowed. Order of conviction passed against the petitioner is maintained whereas the order of sentence is set-aside and the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of six months. Upon his release, the petitioner shall execute bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, on or before 28.11.2011 with an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for a period of six months and to appear and receive the sentence during the said period as and when called upon to do so. In addition, the petitioner would be asked to furnish an undertaking before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, that he will not indulge in such activities in future. The amount of fine, if not already deposited, shall be deposited by the petitioner and be treated as costs of the proceedings. November 07, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE