In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2026 of 2002 Date of decision: November 25, 2008 Ved Paul ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ajit Atri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navneet Singh, AAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This petition is directed against the judgment dated 3.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal , dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner (herein referred to as 'the accused') and maintaining the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.11.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein referred as 'the Act”). Briefly stated, the story leading to the culmination of the trial is that on 31.3.1992 Kali Ram Government Food Inspector along with Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Karnal intercepted the accused who was carrying 60 kgs of cow milk. After disclosing his identity and serving requisite notice purchased 750 mls of cow milk and the same was poured in three dry and clean bottles as per rules. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the remaining two samples were deposited with the Local Public Health Authority. Report Ex.PD dispatched by Public Analyst revealed that the sample was adulterated as it was deficient by 12.5% in milk fat and 2% in milk solids not fat. Consequently, complaint Ex.PF was filed, as a sequel of which the accused was summoned to face trial for the offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. Crl. Revision No. 2026 of 2002 -2- After recording pre charge evidence, the accused was charged for the offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Kali Ram (PW1), Dr. B.L. Madan Medical Superintendent (PW2) and Lal Singh (PW3). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. However, no evidence was led in defence. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner without assailing the conviction has prayed for taking a lenient view on the quantum of sentence. Having gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity has been detected warranting interference by this Court. The concurrent findings recording the guilt of the accused is well founded and well reasoned. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. As regards quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the incident took place way back in the year 1992 and the accused has suffered much agony on account of the protracted proceedings. Nothing has come on record showing bad antecedents of the accused. He has already undergone about one month of the substantive sentence. Under the circumstances, I deem it a fit case where some leniency could be extended to him. Consequently the instant petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by him. However, fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine this petition would be treated as dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal for compliance. November 25, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge