Crl. Revision No.426 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.426 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 04, 2009 Mukhtiar Singh .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.M.S. Rai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Manjari Nehru Kaul, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated January 25, 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated February 15, 1999 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, convicting the petitioner under Section 7(1) read with 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 a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, were upheld. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 21.3.1995 at about 11.30 a.m., Govt. Food Inspector Kanwalpreet Singh, accompanied by Hub Lal, Class IV employee, intercepted the petitioner near Adda Goluka while he was carrying 60 Kilograms milk contained in the drums on a motor-cycle, Crl. Revision No.426 of 2002 -2- which was meant for public sale. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity to the accused, served notice (Ex.PD) upon the petitioner to take the sample of the milk. Accordingly, the Food Inspector purchased 750 ml. of mixed milk on payment of Rs.6/-, after making the contents of milk homogeneous by stirring the same. The purchased milk was divided into three equal parts and same was put into three dry and clean bottles and 20 drops of formaline were added in each bottle as preservative and the same were labelled properly and sealed. Thereafter, one part of the sample along with Form No. VII were was sent to Public Analyst for analysis and remaining two parts of sample were deposited by the Food Inspector with the Local Health Authority on the same day. As per the report of the Public Analyst (Ex.PH), milk fat was found 5.4% and milk solids not fat 7.5%. Thus, both milk fat and milk solids not fat were found deficient by 10.0% and 17.0%, respectively, of the minimum prescribed standards. Further, as per the said report, the contents of the sample also contained detergent as an admixture and accordingly declared the sample to be adulterated and also unfit for human consumption. Accordingly, the Government Food Inspector filed complaint (Ex.PG) against the petitioner before the Court for commission of the offence under Section 7(1) read with 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. After arguing for some time, when the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any illegality in the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, he submits that a lenient view may be taken on the quantum of sentence, keeping in view the facts that the petitioner has already undergone 5 months and 17 days of imprisonment out Crl. Revision No.426 of 2002 -3- of one year sentence awarded to him; he is the only bread earner in the family; and has suffered protracted trial for the last about 14 years. 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. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not controverted the aforesaid period undergone by the petitioner nor cited any contrary judgment. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the alleged offence was committed long back in the year 1994 and since then the petitioner has faced the agony of protracted trial; he has already undergone imprisonment for 5 months and 17 days of imprisonment out of one year sentence awarded to him; 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 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. March 04, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkg JUDGE