Crl. Revision No.122 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.122 of 2003 Date of decision : April 28, 2009 Ram Kishan ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr. Praduman Yadav, DAG, Haryana. A.N. JINDAL, J. The accused-petitioner (herein referred as the petitioner) was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo RI for six months. His appeal was also dismissed on 11-1-2003 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that on 29-6-1994, at about 5.15 p.m., Sh. Himma Singh, Govt. Food Inspector along with other officials apprehended the petitioner and Crl. Revision No.122 of 2003 -2- found 20 Kgs of cow milk in his possession for public sale. After disclosing his identity served notice Ex.PA purchased 750 Ml. cow milk for Rs.6/- by; divided the same into three equal parts; added the preservative and put the same in three dry and clean bottles; the said bottles were stoppered, labeled and sealed properly and sent one of the bottles to the Public Analyst who, vide his report Ex.PG, found the sample to be adulterated. Resultantly, complaint was filed. On trial, the petitioner was convicted. His appeal also failed. At the very outset, the petitioner without assailing the judgment of conviction Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, amicus curiae appointed by this Court argued the case at length but he failed to convince this Court on any point. The case stands fully established on the evidence on record. Sample was sent to the Public Analyst in due time and report u/s 13 (2B) was also been conveyed to the petitioner in due time. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel has pleaded for extending some leniency in the quantum of sentence. Having pondered upon the aforesaid argument, it is noticed that the occurrence took place on 29-6-1994; the sword of sentence remained hanging over the head of the petitioner since then; he has already undergone two and half months of the substantive sentence, as therefore it would not be in the interest of justice to send him to prison again. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- payable by Crl. Revision No.122 of 2003 -3- the petitioner within 4 months from today, failing which this revision petition shall be treated as dismissed. Copy of the order be sent to CJM concerned for compliance. (A.N. JINDAL) April 28, 2009 JUDGE manju