CRR No.3138 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.3138 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.12.2011 Kalu ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Notice of motion. On being asked, Mr. Gaurav Dhir, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has accepted notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. Petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for violation of Rule 32 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, vide order dated 25.1.2010. The appeal filed by the accused/revisionist was dismissed and judgment/order passed by the learned trial Court was upheld by learned CRR No.3138 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nuh, vide judgment dated 28.11.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that only offence proved against the accused/petitioner is that month and date of manufacturing was not clearly mentioned/printed/readable on the sample bottles. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing this revision on merit and is not challenging the conviction of the accused. Learned counsel has argued that this Court may consider to reduce the sentence for the period already undergone. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, states that petitioner/revisionist is the first time offender and no other criminal case is pending against him. He further submits that the petitioner/accused has already undergone about 16 days. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused/petitioner in the company of hardcore criminals; he has already faced mental agony; reducing the sentence for the period already undergone seems to be best option. Therefore, sentence is reduced for the period already undergone in the present case. With above mentioned modification in the matter of sentence, this revision petition stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge December 14, 2011 R.S.