Criminal Revision No.1656 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1656 of 2005 Date of Decision 15.11.2010 Suraj Bhan ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: This is a petition against the judgment dated 25.08.2005, passed by the Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 04.02.2004, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity 'the Act'). The allegations against the petitioner are that he was found having in his possession 6 kgs of Flour, contained in a Bori for public sale. Sample was drawn and the same was put into three dry clean and empty 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 flour, so purchased, was not to the prescribed standards as laid down under the rules, complaint was filed Criminal Revision No.1656 of 2005 2 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. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, 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. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been pointed out in the conduct of the trial or procedure which may result into miscarriage of justice, therefore, the findings returned by both the Courts below, do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the incident pertains to the year 1996 and he has been facing agony of long trial since then, therefore, some leniency would be shown to the petitioner on the quantum of sentence. Arguments heard. Notwithstanding the fact that the occurrence in this case took place on 31.01.1996. Due to the involvement of the procedure as laid down by the legislature for trial of the cases, sometime is consumed for disposal of the trial, thereafter, for disposal of the appeal and the said delay cannot be made a sword to cut the sentence imposed upon the petitioner altogether merely on the ground of some delay in disposal of the case. However, some emphasis on its reduction could be made on the ground that the accused has Criminal Revision No.1656 of 2005 3 the cherished and fundamental right of speedy trial and due to long delay in the proceedings, his this right stands frustrated as such that becomes a ground for reduction in the sentence. . This Court in case Behari Lal versus State of (U.T.) Chandigarh 2000 (1) RCR (Criminal) 222 observed as under:- “Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that the person found guilty of the offence shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. The proviso further provides that in cases covered by Clauses (i) and (ii) to Section 15 (1) of the Act, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, the Court may impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years and with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. It is now well settled that the right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Right to speedy trial following from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial.” Similarly, in case Chander Bhan versus State fo Haryana 1996 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 125, this Court observed as under:- Criminal Revision No.1656 of 2005 4 “It is correct that although minimum sentence to be imposed upon a convict is prescribed by the statute yet keeping in view the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony which he undergoes on account of a protracted trial due to the fault of the prosecution by this Court in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction.” Thus, two things i.e. specific reasons and the judicial compassion could be the grounds to relax his sentence from the minimum itself. In the instant case, the occurrence had taken place in the year 1996; the petitioner has suffered a lot of agony on account of the pendency of proceedings in the Courts for the last fourteen years and the sword of sentence remained hanging over his head since then. He has already undergone two months and six days 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 reduce the sentence to some extent. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to four months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 15.11.2010 mamta-II