Criminal Revision No. 1172 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1172 of 2003 Date of decision: February 04, 2010 Surender Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 29.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Surender Kumar (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 21.12.1999 passed by the Sub Division Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, convicting and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (herein referred as 'the Act') On 29.5.1992, at about 9.00 a.m. When Hari Chand Food Inspector along with Dr. R.P. Singla were present at Jind road bye pass, Hansi, then the accused while carrying 10 kgs of cow's milk in a drum came there. After disclosing his identity, the Food Inspector purchased 750 mls of cow's milk on giving notice in Form NO.VI. The milk so purchased was divided into three equal parts and was put in to three dry and clean bottles by putting required preservative. The sample of analysis was found to be adulterated inasmuch as the fat was found deficient by 20% and milk solids not fat were found 21% deficient. Consequently, the complaint was filed. The accused was tried and convicted as referred to above. Criminal Revision No. 1172 of 2003 -2- At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly conceded that there is no perversity in the judgment of conviction. Even otherwise, the milk appears to be stirred, made homogenous properly and required preservatives were added. Notice under Section 10 (7) of the Act was also issued. The accused was also informed about the report by the Public Analyst, therefore, no grounds for interference in the impugned judgment of conviction are made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments only to the extent that the sample was taken far back in the year 1992, he having faced agony of the protracted trial for the last 18 years and already undergone about a few days short of two months of the sentence deserves some leniency on the quantum of sentence. The learned counsel relied upon the judgments delivered in case Mahaavir vs. State through Govt. Food Inspector, 2000 (4) RCR (Criminal) 208 so also Manoj Kumar vs. State of Haryana 1988 (1) RCR 563 in this regard. Notwithstanding the fact that right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished right guaranteed under the Constitution. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. But, the Constitution never wanted to allow the criminals to go scot free if some procedural delays are caused on the part of the accused or on the part of the court. However, the protracted trial could be considered as a mitigating circumstance for extending some leniency on the the quantum of sentence. Reliance if any could be placed on the judgment delivered in case Mahabir vs. State of Haryana, 1997 (3) RCC 469, wherein it was observed as under :- “The facts indicate that incident pertains to more than 14 years ago. The short question that thus arises for consideration is as to, “whether it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to undergo the rest of the sentence?” There is no over- emphasizing the fact that speedy trial which is the essence of the justice has been lost. A reference of some the precedents in this regard would make the position clear. In the case of Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 (2) Prevention of Food Criminal Revision No. 1172 of 2003 -3- Adulteration Cases 67, 11 years had expired before the revision petition was decided. Keeping in view the inordinate delay, the sentence was reduced to one already undergone. The same question again was considered by this Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar v. State (U.T.) Chandigarh, 1994 (1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 58. Therein the sample had been taken in the year 1984. 9 years had expired by the time the revision petition was heard. Once against the sentence was reduced to the one already undergone. The view point of the Delhi High Court is the same in the case of Vir Singh Chauhan v. State (Delhi), 1994 (2) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 253. When the revision came up for hearing, 7 years had expired. Learned Singal Judge of the said Court reduced the sentence to the one already undergone. Before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Jannalal v. The State of M.P. 1995 (1) Prevention of Adulteration Cases 78, the same vew prevailed.” While relying upon the aforesaid judgment, again learned Singal Bench of this Court in case Puran Mal vs. State of Haryana, 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 527 considered the long pendency of the trial, agony faced on account of the protracted criminal proceedings, as good ground for reduction of the sentence , therefore, it would be expedient in the interest of justice and peculiar circumstances of the case to maintain consistency with the aforesaid judgment. In the present case also, the occurrence took place 18 years back. The accused was about 24 years of age at that time. He may be running this milk business in order to livelihood and I am informed that he has left the business. In any case, he has suffered a lot on account of these protracted criminal proceedings for 18 years. He has also undergone a few days short of two months of the substantive sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by him. However, the fine is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- which shall be paid by him within three months, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed. Criminal Revision No. 1172 of 2003 -4- Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, for compliance. February 04, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge