Criminal Revision No. 746 of 2000 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 746 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.1.2010 Vijay Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Administration through Food Inspector U.T.Chandigarh. .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Hitesh Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Vijay Kumar-petitioner was convicted under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.2,000/- by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh vide judgment and order dated 28.7.1996. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated Criminal Revision No. 746 of 2000 (O&M) 2 5.7.2000 with some modification. The conviction of the petitioner was maintained. However, the sentence of the petitioner from rigourous imprisonment of one year was reduced to rigorous imprisonment of nine months. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.7.1992 at about 11.20 a.m. Sh.O.P.Gautam, Food Inspector inspected the premises of accused Vijay Kumar. He was having in his possession about 20 kgs Besan for sale contained in a bag. Food Inspector demanded sample of Besan by serving notice (Ex.P-A) as prescribed under the provisions of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called as the Rules). Food Inspector purchased 600 gm of Besan vide receipt (Ex.PB) from the accused after making the whole lot homogeneous for Rs.6.60/-. Sample was divided into 3 equal parts and was put into 3 dry and clean bottles. The bottles were labelled, stoppered, secured, fastened and then wrapped in a strong thick paper. Paper seals having serial No.62/9 and Code No.D-40/92 and signatures of Local Health Authority, Chandigarh was further wrapped around the sample from bottom to top and pasted with gum. The bottles were secured by means of strong Criminal Revision No. 746 of 2000 (O&M) 3 twins/thread and sealed with 4 distinct seals. Signatures of the accused were also taken in such a manner that the paper seals and wrappers both carry apart of signatures. One sealed bottle of this sample was sent to Public Analyst, Chandigarh along with copy of the Memorandum Form-VII in a sealed packed by hand. A copy of memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to sel the bottles were also given to the Public Analyst in a sealed envelope separately under intimation to the local Health Authority. The remaining 2 sealed samples were handed over to Local Health Authority for custody along with 2 copies of memorandum in sealed cover. Sample was taken in the presence of Davinder Kumar. Report (Ex.PD) was received. Sample was found infested with 20 living and one dead insects. In these circumstances prosecution was launched, Local Health Authority sent the intimation regarding the prosecution along with the copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused vide letter through registered post. 3. Accused was ordered to be summoned for the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment Criminal Revision No. 746 of 2000 (O&M) 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 Besan was drawn on 15.7.1992. 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 January 29, 2010 anita