Crl. Revision No.952 of 1996 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Crl. Revision No.952 of 1996. Date of decision:-19.3.2008. Inder Kumar son of Om Parkash, Occupation Shopkeeper, resident of House No.1568, Dadu Majra Colony, Chandigarh. ---Appellant. Versus State (U.T. Administration, Union Territory of Chandigarh). ---Respondent. *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present:- Mr. J.S.Rattu, Advocate, Amicus Curiae assisted by Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Standing counsel for U.T. Chandigarh. A.N.JINDAL J. (Oral) This revision petition has arisen out of the order dated 4th December 1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dismissing the appeal against the order dated 02.8.1994 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh convicting the accused-petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as petitioner) under Section 16(i)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Crl. Revision No.952 of 1996 -2- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- on the allegations that the sample of salt collected from him on 10th June, 1987, on analysis on 10th July, 1987, was not found to be iodized salt as represented by him on the packing. On filing of the complaint by the Food Inspector, the petitioner was summoned to face trial. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. At the very outset without assailing the judgment of conviction counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sample was taken on 10th June, 1987. Much agony has been suffered by him during the last 21 years, therefore, some leniency may be extended to him. In this regard he has cited judgments Ishwar Singh Versus The State of Haryana 1994(1)R.C.R. (Criminal) 161, Babu Ram Versus State 2001(4)R.C.R. (Criminal)785, Surjit Singh Versus State (Chandigarh U.T.) 2005(3)R.C.R. (Criminal)583 and Krisahan Kumar Narang Versus State (Union Territory) Chandigarh 2005(3) R.C.R. (Criminal)592. To the contrary Mr. Praduman Yadav, D.A.G. Haryana has urged that since the offence is punishable with minimum sentence of six months, therefore, no leniency less than the minimum sentence could be extended to him. Crl. Revision No.952 of 1996 -3- No doubt the offence is punishable for a minimum sentence but in this case the sample was taken in the year 1987 and the sword of sentence remained hanging over his head during the pendency of these proceedings. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. the right of the accused of speedy trial judicial compassion could play a role and the convict could be compensated for mental agony which he had been undergoing on account of the pendency of the proceedings against him. Similar observations were made in case Chander Bhan Versus State of Haryana 1996(1) R.C.R. 125, Ramesh Kumar Versus State of Punjab 1989 (2) R.C.R. 183 and Ishwar Singh Versus State of Haryana, 1994(1) R.C.R. 160. It was also observed in case Harbans Singh Versus State 2003(2)R.C.R. (Criminal)60 that irrespective of the bar created under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, judicial compassion could play a role and his sentence could be reduced to that of already undergone. In the instant case also the sample was taken as far back as in the year 1987. The proceedings regarding the said sample remained pending before the Trial Court, Appellate Court and then before this Court. Thus, it is a fit case where some leniency could be extended to him. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence that the accused is ordered to be Crl. Revision No.952 of 1996 -4- released on probation under 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to keep peace and be of good behaviour during this period and in case of breach of the terms of the bond, he would be ready to serve the remaining part of sentence. However, the sentence of fine is converted to cost of litigation and he will further deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of the cost on litigation within 3 months failing which the judgment passed by the Appellate Court shall remain intact. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh for compliance. March 19th, 2008. (A.N.JINDAL) asija JUDGE.