Criminal Revision No.754 of 2001 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.754 of 2001 Date of decision: 30.01.2009 Jeet Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through Govt.Food Inspector .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate and Mr.S.K.Sandhir, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Jeet Singh-petitioner was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short- “the Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal vide judgment and order dated 5.2.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide Criminal Revision No.754 of 2001 2 judgment dated 27.3.2001. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 1 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “Brief facts of the case , as detailed in the complaint, are that on 21.11.1992 at about 10.30 a.m. Shri J.S.Chauhan, Government Food Inspector (hereinafter to be referred to as GFI) accompanied by Dr.V.K.Dogra, Senior Medical Officer, Siwan had intercepted the accused Jit Singh and found him in possession of 30 litres of cow's milk in two iron drums. The GFI disclosed his identity and demanded a sample of milk by giving notice Ex.P.A. GFI purchased 750 Mls. of cows milk from the accused after mixing the contents of the milk in the drum, against payment of Rs.4.50 vide receipt Ex.PB. The said milk was divided into three equal parts and put in three dry and clean bottles and 20 drops of formaline were added as preservative in each bottle. Then the three bottles were stoppered, labeled, wrapped and then sealed as per provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. One of the samples was sent to public Analyst, Haryana, Karnal for analysis while two other samples were deposited with the Local Health Authority. GFI also prepared the spot memo Ex.PC. As per report of Public Analyst, Haryana, Criminal Revision No.754 of 2001 3 Karnal, the sample was found to contain 7.6% of milk solids not fat (hereinafter to be referred to as SNF) against the minimum specified limit of 8.5% laid down for cows milk. Thus, the milk was found to be deficient in SNF. Accordingly, a complaint Ex.PE was filed by GFI before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal for commission of offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the PFA Act)” Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment and has prayed that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. In the case of Risala v. State of Haryana, (P&H) 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 239, it was held by this Court that since the petitioner had suffered protracted trial of 24 years, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence as already undergone. However, the sentence of fine was enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The sample of milk was drawn on 21.11.1992. Since then the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was a previous convict. In these circumstances, it would be just and expedient if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is Criminal Revision No.754 of 2001 4 maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to as already undergone by him and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of three months. Non deposit of fine shall render this revision petition as dismissed. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE January 30, 2009 anita