IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.524 of 1998 Date of decision: 22nd January, 2010 Inder Sain … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Nipun Mital, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Hem Lata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Inder Sain was tried in a complaint filed by Govt. Food Inspector under Section 7 read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’). The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved against the order of the trial Court, petitioner had filed an appeal. The same was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court. On 28th August, 1991 at 3.30 p.m. Abhey Ram, Govt. Food Inspector inspected the premises of the petitioner situated in the Anaz Mandi, Jind. The petitioner was found in possession of 6 kg of Haldi powder. The Haldi powder was stored in a tin and was for public sale. The Govt. Food Inspector purchased 600 gm of Haldi powder and paid Rs.15/- and had drawn the receipt also. The sample in consonance with the procedure prescribed was drawn and was sent to the Public Analyst, Criminal Revision No.524 of 1998 Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis. The Public Analyst, Haryana submitted his report Ex.PE and opined that microscopic examination of the sample revealed that it contained rice starch which is a foreign substance to Haldi and the use of it is prohibited under Rule 44(h) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. After presentation of the complaint, notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner and the accused on appearance sought re-analysis of the sample from the Central Food Laboratory. The Central Food Laboratory also found the sample not in consonance with the standards laid and held the same to be adulterated. It is settled legal position that report of the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst. The prosecution examined Abhey Ram Govt. Food Inspector as PW-1, Dr.K.K. Khosla appeared as PW-2 and Dr.Jagjit Singh as PW-3. The accused petitioner, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that the sample was not made homogeneous. The trial Court placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of official witnesses and as mentioned above, convicted and sentenced the petitioner. Later, appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court. Mr.Nipun Mital, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that no independent witness was examined and reports of the Public Analyst and the Central Food Laboratory are at variance to the extent that both of them should be overruled. Both these arguments are devoid of any merit. The official witnesses have been found reliable. The defence has not projected any animus on their part towards the petitioner. Secondly, the report of the Central Food Laboratory is to be relied even though it may be at a variance. It is for this reason, Statute and the judicial pronouncements have held that report of Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst. 2 Criminal Revision No.524 of 1998 At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the sample was drawn on 28th August, 1991. The petitioner is already in the corridors of courts from last about 19 years. He has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial. It is further submitted that at the time of recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the age of the accused petitioner recorded was 61 years. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 21st July, 1993. According to the counsel, petitioner at present is aged about 78 years. It is further submitted that prior to the present occurrence and thereafter, petitioner has committed no offence. Taking into consideration the protracted trial, especially the fact that petitioner is aged about 78 years and his antecedents, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence awarded upon the petitioner. This Court has dealt with the entire case law and noticed the consistent view taken by this Court in ‘Lajpat Rai v. State of Haryana’ 2010(1) RCR Criminal 311. Therefore, in view of the ratio of law noticed in Lajpat Rai’s case (supra) and submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months from today, failing which the petitioner shall undergo the sentence awarded by the trial Court. With the modifications in sentence, noticed above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE January 22, 2010 rps 3