IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision Petition No.352 of 2000 Date of Decision: 8.9.2009 Kalu Ram. ....... Petitioner through Shri R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate with Shri Ashok K.Sharma,Advocate. Versus The State of Haryana. ....... Respondent through Mrs.Sushma Chopra, Addl.Advocate General. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 6.3.2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide which the appeal of the petitioner along with that of one Subhash Chander, his co-accused, was dismissed and the judgment of conviction dated 4.7.1997 and order of sentence dated 5.7.1997 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') were upheld. On a complaint preferred by the Government Food Inspector to the effect that the petitioner and his co-accused, Subhash Chander, were found in possession of adulterated milk for public sale on 10.1.1987 and were, prima facie, guilty of an offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) Crl.Revisin Petition No.352 of 2000 -2- .... (i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (for short, `the Act'), they were tried, convicted & sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each. Learned counsel for the petitioner without assailing the impugned judgment on merits, only prayed that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner may be converted into that of fine in view of the fact that he has undergone the agony of criminal proceedings for the last seventeen years and he is fairly advanced in age by now. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State contended that there is no mitigating circumstance in favour of the petitioner to warrant any lenient view in the matter of sentence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has not assailed to the impugned judgment on merits and has accepted his conviction, the same is affirmed. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has suffered the criminal proceedings for the last seventeen years and also the fact that he is now fairly advanced in age since he was 40 years of age at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 17.5.1991, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be squarely met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is converted into that of fine. For this view, I draw support from a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Krishan Gopal Sharma and another Versus Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, 1996(1) F.A.C. 258 = (1996) 4 S.C.C. 513 and also from the judgments of Allahabad High Court in Bhageloo Versus State of U.P. and Crl.Revisin Petition No.352 of 2000 -3- .... another, 1996(2) F.A.C. 199 and of this Court in Mahavir Versus State through Govt. Food Inspector, 2000(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 208. In Shri Krishan Gopal Sharma's case (supra), their Lordships of the Apex Court observed as follows:- “14 ..... It should be emphasised that strict adherence to Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules framed thereunder should be insisted and enforced for safeguarding the interest of consumers of articles of food. In the Constitution Bench decision in Tejani case [ (1974) 1 S.C.C. 167] it has been indicated that in order to prevent unmerited leniency in the matter of awarding sentence for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the legislature by amendment has incorporated the provision of minimum sentence. But it has also been indicated that the court, for adequate and special reasons, may bring down the minimum sentence. The Constitution Bench has also observed that all violations of provisions of the Act and Rules need not be treated alike because “there are violations and violations”. In the special facts of these cases, it appears to us that a deterrent punishment of imprisonment is not called for and imposition of fine will meet the ends of justice. The criminal cases were initiated on the basis of samples taken in 1987. The accused- appellants have already faced the ordeal of criminal trials for a number of years. In the aforesaid circumstances, further agony Crl.Revisin Petition No.352 of 2000 -4- .... of criminal trials need not be prolonged. Conclusion of the criminal cases will also save time and expenditure of the respondent. 15. In that view of the matter, we direct for quashing the criminal cases in question on payment of costs at Rs.7500/- in each of these appeals as in our view, on conviction of the appellants in the criminal cases initiated against them, such fine would have met the ends of justice. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.” Consequently, the revision petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The conviction of the petitioner shall remain intact; (ii) the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to that of fine of Rs.15,000/- which shall include the fine of Rs.1000/- already deposited by him. The fine shall be deposited within a period of three months from today before the trial Court and the same shall be forfeited to the respondent-State; and (iii) in the event of failure of the petitioner to deposit the fine within the stipulated period , the sentence as awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court shall automatically stand revived. September 8,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge