Crl.R. No.656 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: Crl.R. No.656 of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: May 18, 2009 YASIN KHAN ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. PRESENT: MR. I.S. BRAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. GAGANDEEP SINGH WASU, DAG, HARYANA. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 20.1.1999, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa and the judgement dated 25.2.2004, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide which the petitioner has been convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 1 year. The judgement passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa has been upheld by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa. Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, states that he does not wish to challenge the findings of guilt recorded against the petitioner by both the Courts below, but this Court may take a lenient view while sentencing the petitioner as the sample of cow's milk was taken on 31.7.1994, i.e. almost 15 years ago. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has already undergone 25 days of actual imprisonment. Counsel Crl.R. No.656 of 2004 -2- for the petitioner has placed reliance on Mahavir Vs. State through Government Food Inspector, reported as 2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 208, wherein the accused was convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and had undergone 16 days of imprisonment, but as the case was 16 years old, hence the sentence was reduced to the one already undergone by him. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already deposited the fine as imposed by the trial Court. The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner have been vehemently controverted by the counsel for the State who submits that the crime of adulteration is against public at large, therefore, at least the fine be enhanced. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that as the sample of milk was taken as far back on 31.7.1994, from the petitioner and as approximately 15 years have elapsed since the time the sample was taken and the fact the petitioner has already faced a long and protracted criminal proceedings, therefore, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone by him. In view of the above, I uphold the conviction of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, however, I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him. The petitioner shall, however, pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as fine. The fine shall be deposited in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa within a period of three months from today. In case of non-deposit of fine as ordered by this Court, the petitioner shall be taken in custody forthwith Crl.R. No.656 of 2004 -3- and shall serve out the remaining portion of his sentence. Revision disposed of. May 18, 2009 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Gulati JUDGE