Crl.Rev.No.70 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.70 of 2000 Date of decision: 7.10.2009 Ashok Kumar ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Jaspreet Singh Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Godara, DAG, Haryana. ... JORA SINGH, J. Ashok Kumar through instant revision has challenged the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, dated 12.1.2000. Vide this judgment, appeal against the judgment and order dated 9.5.1995 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, was dismissed, with modification that instead of RI for one year, the petitioner is to undergo RI for six months. As per the judgment and order dated 9.5.1995 of the SDJM, the petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short `the Act'), and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months. On 24.4.1986, Government Food Inspector along with Dr.M.L.Kalra had gone to the shop of the petitioner situated in Phikka Peer, Hansi. Sant Lal was also present there. The petitioner was found present in the shop. 7 packets of Anupam biscuits were kept in the shop for public Crl.Rev.No.70 of 2000 2 sale. 3 packets were purchased by the Food Inspector against payment and receipt. Packets were sealed as per rules. One sealed packet was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandgiarh, alongwith memorandum in form VII in a sealed cover of local health authority. But as per report of the Public Analyst, the sample was found containing acids 1.68% against the minimum prescribed standard of 1.25%. Ultimately, complaint was instituted by the Food Inspector. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the occurrence is dated 24.4.1986. At that time, the petitioner was 40 years’ old. The petitioner is the first offender and belongs to a poor family. The petitioner is a small shop keeper. He is to become a hard criminal if again sent to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. The petitioner has already undergone 17 days out of actual sentence of six months. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested that a lenient view may be taken on the point of sentence. Reliance was placed on 2003(1) RCR (Crl.) 10, Hardwari Lal vs. State of Haryana, and 2003(1) RCR (Crl.) 121, Gurdev Singh vs. UT, Chandigarh. Learned State counsel argued that no doubt, the petitioner is the first offender and the occurrence is dated 24.4.1986. If lenient view is taken, then the petitioner be directed to deposit more fine. I have gone through the evidence on file. File shows that the petitioner was found in possession of 7 packets of Anupam biscuits for public sale. 3 packets were purchased against payment and receipt. As per report of the laboratory, sample was found to be against the prescribed standard. Crl.Rev.No.70 of 2000 3 Sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner may be directed to undergo imprisonment as already undergone because the petitioner has faced agony of trial for the last about 23 years. Under Section 16 of the Act, when the accused is convicted, then the convict under Section 6 of the Act is to be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. Section 20-AA of the Act further lays down that Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, or Section 360 Cr.P.C. is not to be applicable when the accused is convicted under this Act, unless the convict is not less than 18 years of age. In Chander Bhan Vs. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR (Crl.) 125, Hon'ble High Court held that though the convict is not entitled to be released under the Probation of Offenders Act, yet if the convict suffers the agony of the criminal proceedings for several years, then keeping in view the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India qua the right of the accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role and the convict can be compensated for the mental agony. In Ishwar Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1994(1) RCR (Crl.) 160 and Nand Lal vs. State of Haryana, 1992(1) RCR (Crl.) 82, in para of the judgment, his Lordship was pleased to observe as under:- “7. Now it cannot be disputed that the right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished right guaranteed under the Constitution. Fundamental rights were not a teasing illusions to be mocked at. These were meant to be enforced and made a reality. Fair, just and reasonable Crl.Rev.No.70 of 2000 4 procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the social interest also, does not make it any-the-less the right of the accused. Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. This is how, the court shall understand this right and have gone to the extent of quashing the prosecution after such inordinate delay in concluding the trial of an accused keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Keeping a person in suspended animation for 10 years or more without any case at all cannot be with the spirit of the procedure established by law. It is correct that although minimum sentence to be imposed upon a convict is prescribed by the statute yet keeping in view the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony which he undergoes on account of protracted trial due to the fault of the prosecution by this Court in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction.” Similar view was taken in Sat Pal vs. State of Haryana, 1998(1) RCR (Crl.) 75 and Manoj Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 1998(1) RCR (Crl.) 563, wherein it was held by Hon'ble Judges that in spite of bar created under Crl.Rev.No.70 of 2000 5 Section 16 of the Act, a convict can be directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone. In the present case, occurrence is dated 24.4.1986. Petitioner has faced agony of trial for the last about 23 years. He is the first offender and belongs to a poor family. He is a small shop keeper and is to become a hard criminal if again sent to jail to undergo sentence as ordered by the trial Court. Keeping in view the nature of offence, the petitioner is directed to undergo imprisonment as already undergone (17 days), with a direction to deposit Rs.20,000/- more as fine with the trial Court within two months from today, failing which revision would stand dismissed automatically. With the aforesaid modification on the part of sentence, revision being without merit is dismissed. 7.10.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE