Criminal Revision No. 807 of 2005 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 807 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.4.2010 Parveen ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Parveen-petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 vide judgment dated 24.10.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri. Vide order of the even date, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment dated 15.4.2005. Criminal Revision No. 807 of 2005 (O&M) 2 Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “2. The matrix of the prosecution case, as called out from the complaint, instituted by Government Food Inspector, Charkhi Dadri, is that on 16.7.1991, about 1.00 p.m. He along with Dr.N.K.Mittal, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Charkhi Dadri, inspected the Dhaba (Hotel) run by accused, situated at the bank of road, which leads from Charkhi Dadri to Mahendergarh. The accused was present in the hotel keeping ten kilograms of wheat flour in a container for preparing chapaties i.e. Meant for public sale. As per rules, he lifted a sample of wheat flour having purchased 600 grams after making homogeneous and divided the same into three bottles and each bottle was sealed. However, the sealed bottle along with a form No.VII was sent to the public Analyst, whereas, two bottles along with two copies of form No.VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Charkhi Dadri. Sample of wheat flour was found be adulterated in view of the certificate, issued by the Public Analyst. Thereafter, the complaint was instituted.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment Criminal Revision No. 807 of 2005 (O&M) 3 and has prayed that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. In support of his arguments learned senior 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 wheat flour was drawn on 16.7.1991 Since then the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment is reduced to already undergone by him and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of one month. Non deposit of fine shall render this revision petition as dismissed. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE April 26, 2010 anita