IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.774 of 2003 Date of Decision : March 05, 2010 Jage Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate Ms. Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried for offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the allegations that the sample of Deshi Khand taken from his grocery shop on 9.6.1992 at about 12.30 P.M. was found to contain 26 PPM iron fillings and 7 PPM sulphur dioxide whereas it should have been free from both. Vide judgment and order dated August 23, 1999, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Safidon convicted the petitioner for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by Criminal Revision No.774 of 2003 - 2 - learned Additional Sessions Judge on April 02, 2003 by maintaining his conviction and sentence. Hence, the present revision. From the testimonies of PW1 Hari Singh Sandhu, Government Food Inspector and PW2 Dr. D.P. Lochan, it has been established as a matter of fact that the petitioner was having in his possession 6 kgs. of Deshi Khand and after making it homogenous, 750 gms. was purchased after making payment of Rs.6/-. The article was divided into three equal parts and put in three dry and clean bottles. One of the samples was sent to Public Analyst for examination and it was found to contain 26 PPM iron fillings and 7 PPM sulphur dioxide. After the receipt of the report from the Public Analyst, a criminal complaint was instituted by the Food Inspector against the petitioner. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the conviction of the petitioner is not based upon evidence. The sample in question was taken from the petitioner about 18 years back. The petitioner was taken into custody on 2.4.2003 upon dismissal of his appeal by the learned lower appellate Court. It was only on 30.5.2003 when the petitioner was granted the concession of bail by this Court in the present revision. He has, thus, already undergone a substantive sentence of about two months. When the petitioner was heard by the learned trial Court on the quantum of sentence, he had stated that he was a first offender. Criminal Revision No.774 of 2003 - 3 - In Parshadi V State of Haryana 2004(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 360, the sentence of a similarly situated accused, who stood convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was reduced to that already undergone by him as he had been facing the trial for a period of fourteen years. However, his fine was enhanced. While doing so, the Court relied upon a number of judgments, viz Mahavir V. State through Govt. Food Inspector, 2000(4) RCR(Crl.) 208, Behari Lal V. State of (U.T.) Chandigarh, 2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 222, Des Raj V. The State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR 689, Vijay Kumar V. The State of Haryana 1996(2) RCR(Crl.) 554 (P&H), Mohinder Singh V. State (Chandigarh Administration), 1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 168 (P&H) and Satpal V. State of Haryana, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 15 (P&H). In Narinder Kumar V. State of Haryana, 2008(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 288, this Court, once again, reduced the sentence of a similarly situated convict to that already undergone by him as the occurrence pertained to the year 1984. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, so as to serve his remaining sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if his substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him and the fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed upon the Criminal Revision No.774 of 2003 - 4 - petitioner enhanced by Rs.10,000/-. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone him. However, the fine of Rs.1,000/- is enhanced by Rs.10,000/-, to be deposited within three months from today, failing which the petitioner shall be required to undergo his remaining substantive sentence of imprisonment. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S.MANN ) March 05, 2010 JUDGE satish