IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2503 of 2003 Date of Decision 24.09.2010 Rajinder Kumar ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.S.S.Siao, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: The petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 11.12.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Panchkula, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 22/23.07.2003, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 7 read with Section 16(i)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was found having in his possession 5 kgs of curd, contained in a bucket, for public sale. On receipt of the report of public analyst to the effect that the curd so purchased was not according to the prescribed standards as laid down under the rules, complaint was filed against him. After recording the preliminary evidence, notice 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. On trial, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Criminal Revision No.2503 of 2003 -2- Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was found or detected in the conduct of trial or procedure, which may result into miscarriage of justice or failure of justice, therefore, the findings returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1991. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings for such a long time in various Courts. He has already undergone some period of the substantive sentence. Under these peculiar circumstances, 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 three months. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- which would be paid by the petitioner within three months from today, failing which, he will be ready to serve the remaining part of sentence. Copy of the order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 24.09.2010 mamta-II