IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Revision No.284 of 1993 Date of Decision: 20.7.2009 Babu Ram. ....... Petitioner through Shri G.S.Sawhney,Advocate. Versus U.T., Chandigarh. ....... Respondent through Shri Hemant Bassi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 3.5.1993 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh (hereinafter described as `the appellate Court') vide which the appeal of the petitioner preferred against judgment dated 1.11.1991 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh ( referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (for short, `the Act'), was dismissed. At the out-set, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Crl.Revision No.284 of 1993 -2- .... the sample of milk was taken from the petitioner on 22.2.1991 and that he was awarded the aforesaid conviction and sentence for the reason that the Public Analyst found the same adulterated being milk fat 31% and milk solids not fat 23.5% of the minimum prescribed standard. He further contend that variation of fats and solid content did not point out to injurious effect on human consumption. He, however, states that he is not addressing the Court on merits of the case. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been facing the agony of the criminal proceedings for the last eighteen years and in view of the prolonged proceedings, his case may be viewed sympathetically. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that there is absolutely no ambiguity in the judgments impugned in this petition and conviction & sentence has rightly been awarded to the petitioner. He submitted that in the matters of food adulteration, no compassion should be shown. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. There is, indeed, no doubt that compassion should not be shown to persons, who are playing with the life and health of people, but, at the same time, noticing the fact that the sample was taken in the year 1991 and the conviction & sentence was affirmed by the appellate Court in the year 1993 and also the fact that sixteen years have passed thereafter, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the Crl.Revision No.284 of 1993 -3- .... petitioner to jail after such a long period and it would be in the fitness of things if the sentence awarded to him is reduced to that of fine. For this view, I draw support from a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Krishan Gopal Sharma and another Versus Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, 1996(1) F.A.C. 258 = (1996) 4 S.C.C. 513 and also from the judgments of Allahabad High Court in Bhageloo Versus State of U.P. and another, 1996(2) F.A.C. 199 and of this Court in Mahavir Versus State through Govt. Food Inspector, 2000(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 208. In Shri Krishan Gopal Sharma's case (supra), their Lordships of the Apex Court observed as follows:- “14 ..... It should be emphasised that strict adherence to Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules framed thereunder should be insisted and enforced for safeguarding the interest of consumers of articles of food. In the Constitution Bench decision in Tejani case [ (1974) 1 S.C.C. 167] it has been indicated that in order to prevent unmerited leniency in the matter of awarding sentence for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the legislature by amendment has incorporated the provision of minimum sentence. But it has also been indicated that the court, for adequate and special reasons, may bring down the minimum sentence. The Constitution Bench has also observed that all violations of provisions of the Act and Rules need not be treated alike because “there are violations and violations”. In Crl.Revision No.284 of 1993 -4- .... the special facts of these cases, it appears to us that a deterrent punishment of imprisonment is not called for and imposition of fine will meet the ends of justice. The criminal cases were initiated on the basis of samples taken in 1987. The accused- appellants have already faced the ordeal of criminal trials for a number of years. In the aforesaid circumstances, further agony of criminal trials need not be prolonged. Conclusion of the criminal cases will also save time and expenditure of the respondent. 15. In that view of the matter, we direct for quashing the criminal cases in question on payment of costs at Rs.7500/- in each of these appeals as in our view, on conviction of the appellants in the criminal cases initiated against them, such fine would have met the ends of justice. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.” Consequently, the revision petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The conviction of the petitioner shall remain intact; (ii) the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to that of fine of Rs.10,000/- which shall include the fine of Rs.1000/- already deposited by him. The fine shall be deposited within a period of three months from today before the trial Court. (iii) in the event of failure of the petitioner to deposit the fine Crl.Revision No.284 of 1993 -5- .... within the stipulated period , the sentence as awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court shall automatically stand revived. July 20,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge