Criminal Revision No. 811 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 811 of 2002 Date of decision: 15.2.2010 Surinder Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.G.S.Sawhney, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.H.S.Beniwal, DAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Surinder Kumar-petitioner was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari vide judgment and order dated 7.2.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide judgment dated 20.4.2002. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para Nos. 2 to 5 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “2. The allegations against the accused are that Criminal Revision No. 811 of 2002 2 on 27.10.1990 at about 7.45 a.m. Shri Chuni Lal the then Government Food Inspector intercepted the accused Surinder Kumar at Bus Stand Khijrabad and found that the accused was having about 15 litres of cow milk for public sale contained in two drums on his cycle. Dr.R.K.Grover, Medical Officer, PHC Khijrabad and an independent witness Shamsher were also with him. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and expressed his intention to purchase sample of said milk for analysis. Hence, he served notice Ex.PA upon the accused in the presence of witnesses. He purchased 750 ml. of cow milk on payment of Rs.3 vide receipt Ex.PD. The sample was taken after mixing and stirring the whole contents properly and after making the same uniform. 3. The milk so purchased was divided into three equal parts and put into three dry and clean bottles equally. Requisite drops of formalin were added as preservative in each bottle. The bottles were then stoppered, labelled and sealed as per rules. Bottles were then wrapped in khakhi thick paper and the ends of paper were pasted with gum after moulding. The paper slip issued by Local Health Authority, Yamunanagar and containing the signatures of the Local Health Authority was pasted on each bottle from top to bottom which Criminal Revision No. 811 of 2002 3 were secured by means of thread and sealed. The signatures of Surinder Kumar accused were obtained on each bottle in such a way that half of the signature may come on the paper slip and the remaining half on the khakhi thick paper. 4. One such sealed bottle alongwith Memo in Form VII was sent to Public analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, for analysis and the remaining two parts of the sample along with two copies of Memo in Form VII were deposited with Local Health Authority, Yamunanagar, in a second packet, as per rules prescribed under the Act. 5. After analysis of the sample report of Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh Ex.PD was received according to which milk fat was found 5.0% and milk solid not fat 7.6% and hence, milk solid not fat was found 11% deficient of the minimum prescribed standards. Hence, the present complaint Ex.PE was instituted by Government Food Inspector before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari. The Food Inspector also informed the Local Health Authority, Yamunanagar regarding the said fact.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment Criminal Revision No. 811 of 2002 4 and has prayed that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Risala v. State of Haryana, (O&H) 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 239, wherein it was held that since the petitioner had suffered protracted trial of 24 years, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence as already undergone. However, the sentence of fine was enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was a previous convict. The sample of milk was drawn on 27.10.1990. Since then the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings. In these circumstances, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to as already undergone by him and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months. Non deposit of fine shall render this revision petition as dismissed. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE February 15, 2010 anita