IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2185 of 2003 Date of decision: September 21, 2010 Jag Pal .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 18.10.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 11.2.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year 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'). However, in appeal, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to six months. The allegations in brief are that on 26.8.1991 at about 8.00 a.m. Food Inspector Chuni Lal accompanied by Dr. V.K. Wadhawan intercepted the accused at Budh Kalan who was having 20 kgs of Cow milk for public sale. After disclosing his identity and serving notice on a prescribed form, he purchased 750 ml of the Cow's Milk as sample after making it homogenous and divided it into three parcels after adding required formelin, it was put in three dry and cleaned bottles. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh and the remaining two samples were deposited with the Local Health Authority. The sample was found to be adulterated to the extent that the milk solids not fat was 16.5% deficient of the minimum prescribed standards. The complaint was instituted against the accused. Criminal Revision No.2185 of 2003 -2- After recording preliminary evidence, the accused was summoned. On the application moved by the accused, the second sample was sent for re-analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, which declared the sample to be unfit for analysis. Thereafter the third sample was also sent for re-analysis which was also found unfit for analysis. On the basis of the pre-charge evidence led by the complainant, the accused was charged under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Government Food Inspector Chuni Lal (PW1), Kali Ram (PW2), Dr. V.K.Wadhawan (PW3) and Dr. A.L. Sethi (PW4). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal also failed with certain modification in the sentence. At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he being the first offender and having already undergone about one month of the substantive sentence, must be extended some leniency. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, the findings of fact returned by both the courts below regarding the guilt of the accused are affirmed. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1991 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him for the last 19 years. He has already undergone about one month of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his Criminal Revision No.2185 of 2003 -3- executing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, the fine is converted into costs of litigation and he is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- more towards costs of litigation. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri for compliance. September 21, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge