IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.132 of 2005 Date of Decision 12.10.2010 Ashok Kumar ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 06.01.2005, passed by Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 25.09.2003, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity 'the Act'). However, in appeal, the sentence was reduced to nine months. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was found having in his possession 12 kgs of Toria (mustered) oil, contained in a tin for public sale. Sample was drawn and after mixing the same, it was put into three dry and clean bottles. The bottles were properly wrapped, stoppered and sealed, as required under law and one bottle was sent for analysis. On receipt of the report of public analyst to the effect that the oil so purchased was not to the prescribed standards as laid down under the Criminal Revision No.132 of 2005 -2- rules, complaint was filed against him. After recording the preliminary evidence, notice of accusation was issued to the petitioner to which he denied as incorrect. The complainant led further evidence. The petitioner was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Opportunity to lead defence was also given. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Heard. Sufficient evidence has been led in order to establish the charge against the petitioner. The evidence, on the basis of which findings of fact have been returned by the Courts below, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. The occurrence is of the year 1992; the petitioner has suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings pending in the Courts since then; he has already undergone some period of the substantive sentence and no bad antecedents have been pointed out to enable this Court to dub him as habitual offender, therefore, it would be in the fitness of things to take a lenient view in the matter. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to three months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 12.10.2010 mamta-II