Crl. Revision No.1073 of 1998 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1073 of 1998 Date of Decision: 20 - 1 - 2010 Ajmer Singh ....Petitioner v. State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Ajmer Singh son of Banarsi Dass was tried in a complaint instituted by Ram Singh, Government Food Inspector, by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri. The petitioner was convicted for contravention of Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Act') and was sentenced under Section16 (1)(a)(i) of the Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The present petitioner on 18.6.1985 at 8.00 A.M. was apprehended by Government Food Inspector at Bus Stand, Malikpur Crl. Revision No.1073 of 1998 [2] Khadar. Petitioner was having in his possession 20 Kilograms of cow's milk for public sale. The Government Food Inspector who was accompanied by Dr.J.P.Sharma, Deputy Chief Medical Officer/Local Health Authority, Ambala had purchased 660 Mls. of cow's milk for Rs.2/- and had issued the receipt also. The sample was drawn in accordance with rules and provisions of the Act. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst. According to report of the Public Analyst Ex.PD, the milk fat was 5.2% and milk solids not fat 8.2%. Thus, milk solids not fat was deficient to the extent of 3.5%. In the trial Court Ram Singh, Government Food Inspector appeared as PW1 and Dr.J.P.Sharma as PW2. The trial Court relied upon the testimony of these witnesses and held the petitioner guilty. Aggrieved against the sentence, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the Court below and affirmed the conviction and sentence. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he is conscious that once two Courts have come to conclusion that offence is established against the petitioner, he will not be in a position to assail the testimony of the witnesses, as revisional court cannot tread on the path of re-appraisal and re-appreciation of the evidence. Counsel has further stated that there is no patent illegality or irregularity in the judgments of two Courts below, therefore, he will not assail the conviction. However, counsel has prayed that in the present case sample was drawn on 18.6.11985. About 25 years are going to elapse. Petitioner has suffered a protracted trial for more than two decades. Further more, it is submitted that during this period petitioner has committed no other offence. It is further submitted that petitioner was taken into custody on 26.9.1998 and was released on bail by this Court on Crl. Revision No.1073 of 1998 [3] 13.10.1998. Thus, he has undergone about 18 days of actual sentence of six months. Taking into consideration the protracted trial and antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence awarded upon the petitioner. This Court has dealt with the entire case law and noticed the consistent view taken by this Court in Lajpat Rai v. State of Haryana, 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 310. Therefore, in view of the ratio of law noticed in Lajpat Rai's case (supra) and submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months from today, failing which the petitioner shall undergo the sentence awarded by the trial Court. With the aforesaid modification in order of sentence, present revision petition is disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) January 20, 2010 JUDGE RC