IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1978 of 2003 Date of Decision 09.09.2010 Bhagwan Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: This petition is directed against the judgment dated 09.09.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagadhari, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 29.08.1997, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity 'the Act'). The allegations against the petitioner are that he was found having in his possession adulterated cow's milk, contained in a drum, for public sale. 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 accused to which he denied as incorrect. The complainant led further evidence. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Opportunity to lead defence was also given. Criminal Revision No.1978 of 2003 -2- Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for extending some leniency 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 found or detected which may result into miscarriage of justice. As such, the findings of both 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 1988. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony on account of protracted proceedings in the Courts for the last 22 years. He has already undergone about 2 months of the substantive sentence. 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.30,000/-, which would be paid by the petitioner within three months from today, failing which, he would be ready to serve remaining part of sentence. Copy of the order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 09.09.2010 mamta-II