IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.709 of 2004 Date of Decision 29.09.2010 Jagdish ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.S.K.Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: The petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') has assailed the judgment dated 09.03.2004, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 22.09.1999, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 61(1)(a)(i) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for brevity 'the Act'). The allegations against the petitioner are that he was found having in his possession 25 litres of adulterated cow's milk, contained in two drums. The milk was properly stirred and made homogenous, thereafter sample milk was purchased, made into three parts, put into three dry and clean bottles and preservative was also added. The bottles were properly wrapped, stoppered and sealed and one of the sealed bottle was sent for public analysis. On receipt of the report of public analyst to the effect that the milk so purchased was not to the prescribed standards as laid down under the rules, complaint was filed against him. After recording the preliminary evidence, notice of accusation was issued to the petitioner to which he denied as incorrect. The complainant led further evidence and the petitioner was also provided opportunity to further cross-examine the witnesses. He was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Opportunity to lead defence was also given. Criminal Revision No.709 of 2004 -2- Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel has urged for extending some leniency to the petitioner on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was pointed out in the conduct of the trial or procedure which may result into miscarriage of justice or failure of justice therefore, findings returned by the Courts below do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1990. The petitioner has already suffered a lot on account of protracted proceedings pending in the Courts for the last twenty years. As per custody certificate, produced by the learned State counsel, he has already undergone one month and nineteen days of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have been pointed out which may create a hurdle for reducing the sentence awarded against him. Under these peculiar circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- which would be paid by the petitioner within three months from today, failing which he would serve the entire sentence as awarded by the Courts below. Copy of the order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 29.09.2010 mamta-II