Crl. Revision No.1378 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1378 of 2001 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 27 , 2009 Baldev Singh .....PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.H.S.Gill,Sr. Advocate, with Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Sullar, D.A.G., Haryana, for the respondent. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated September 05, 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge(I), Kaithal, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated March 06, 1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal convicting the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, were upheld. The petitioner is a milkman. As per the prosecution case, on 1.8.1995, Government Food Inspector Harbhajan Singh along with Dr.S.N.Singal and one Sukhdev Singh, apprehended the petitioner in front Crl. Revision No.1378 of 2001 -2- of the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kaithal with three drums of unindicated milk. He purchased 660 M.Lts. of milk on payment which was divided into three equal parts and sealed, and later on part of sample was sent to Public Analyst for analysis. As per the report of the Public Analyst (Ex.PD), milk fat was found to be 5.7% against the minimum prescribed standard of 6% and milk solid not fat was found to be 6.9% against minimum prescribed standard of 9%. Accordingly, the Government Food Inspector filed complaint (Ex.PE) against the petitioner for commission of the offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 16(1) (a)(i) of the Act. In the said complaint, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as indicated above and the said conviction was upheld in appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner half-heartedly argued that in this case the sample of the cow milk was taken which was wrongly recorded by the Government Food Inspector as the sample of buffalo's milk. He submitted that as far as cow's milk is concerned, the prescribed standard is 4% milk fat and 8.5% milk solid not fat, whereas for buffalo's milk, the prescribed standard is 6% milk fat and 9% milk solid not fat. Learned counsel submits that in this case as per the Analyst Report the milk fat was found to be 5.7%. Learned counsel further submits that by applying the standard laid down for cow's milk, the milk fat of 5.7% found in the sample was actually more than the prescribed standard of 4% as laid down under the Act and milk solid not fat was found to be 6.9% as against the prescribed standard of 8.5%. Therefore, in this case the deficiency was only with regard to milk solid not fat which might be due to imperfect analysis by Public Analyst or poor feed given to cow. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in Crl. Revision No.1378 of 2001 -3- Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 744, wherein it has been held that when milk fat is found more while milk solids not fat are found marginally less than prescribed standard, then marginal deficiency in milk solids not fat was attributable either to imperfect analysis by Public Analyst or poor feed given to the cow. However, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, he does not want to press this revision petition on merits, and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner has already undergone eight days of imprisonment out of one year sentence awarded to him; he is the only bread earner in the family; he is not a previous convict; and has suffered protracted trial for the last more than 23 years, a lenient view may be taken in the order of sentence. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) RCR (Crl.) 371; Mohinder Lal v. State of Haryana, 2002(4) RCR (Crl.) 749; Surjit Singh v. State (Chandigarh U.T.), 2005(3) RCR (Crl.) 583; and Sektu Ram v. State of Haryana, 2008(3) RCR (Crl.) 364. Keeping in view the above decisions, and after considering the facts that in the present case the deficiency in milk solids not fat was marginal, the alleged offence was committed long back in the year 1985 and since then the petitioner has faced the agony of protracted trial; he has already undergone imprisonment for eight days; he is not a previous convict; and he is the only bread earner in the family, I am inclined to hold that calling upon the petitioner to undergo the remaining part of his sentence at this stage would be totally unfair and in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the order of conviction is upheld and the sentence of Crl. Revision No.1378 of 2001 -4- imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. Therefore, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. With the above modification in the quantum of sentence, criminal revision is dismissed. February 27, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkg JUDGE