CRR NO. 1015 OF 2002 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 1015 OF 2002 Date of decision: 24.02.2009 Karam Chand ……Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana …..Respondent Before: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr. V.M.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Khatkar, AAG, Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J Assailed in the petition is the judgment dated 08.05.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners and upholding his conviction and sentence of one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act(Hereinafter referred to as the Act). Brief facts of the case are that on 27.05.1986, Shri Buta Singh Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. Mohinder singh visited the premises situated at Naraingarh. He was found present at the spot and told the shop was owned by Joginder Lal. Food Inspector after disclosing his identity, purchased 660 mls. cow’s milk for a sum of Rs. 2.50 Ps. The purchased milk was divided into three equal parts and poured into three dry and clean bottles equally. 18 drops of Formalin were added in each of the sample bottle as preservative, and the bottles were properly secured, stoppered, fastened, wrapped and sealed as per law. One of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported the same to the adulterated as it was found containing milk fat 57.5% deficient and milk solids not fat 27% deficient of the CRR NO. 1015 OF 2002 [ 2] minimum prescribed standards. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused/appellant vide registered post as required under Section 13(2) of the Act. On these facts, the complaint was filed. The complaint was tried as a warrant case. He was charged under Section16(1)(a)(i)read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded his falsely implication. Ultimately trial ended in conviction and his appeal also failed. Arguments heard. On scrutiny of the judgment no such illegality much less irregularity has been detected. The evidence appears to have been appreciated by the courts below in the right perspective. The consistent findings returned by the courts below cannot be interfered, unless these based on misappreciation or misreading of evidence faced with the situation, counsel has surrendered the petitioner to the mercy of this Court by paying for some leniency in the quantum of sentence. In this regard, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1986. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony during the trial and due to the protracted proceedings in this Court. He has also undergone some period of imprisonment. As such this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence by directing that the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount failing to comply with the terms of the bond, he would be ready to serve the remaining part of the sentence. The sentence of fine is converted into costs of litigation and he is directed to pay further costs of Rs.20,000/- CRR NO. 1015 OF 2002 [ 3] within three months failing which this petition shall be treated as dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala for compliance. [A.N.JINDAL] JUDGE 24th February, 2009 SKaushik