Criminal Revision No.507 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.507 of 1995 Date of decision: February 22`, 2008 Dharm Bir … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vijender Dhankar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Manmohan Sikka, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Mr.Vijender Dhankar appearing for the petitioner has stated that in view of the findings of two courts below, he will not contest his conviction on merits. The case is that petitioner, on January 25, 1988 in the area of tehsil Bhiwani was intercepted by the Govt. Food Inspector, Mr.O.P.Kalra, who was accompanied by Dr.Kapil Kumar. One Krishan Kumar an independent witness was also present along with them. It is stated that 660 ml of cow milk was purchased by the Food Inspector for Rs.3/- and same, according to the procedure prescribed, sample was made and was sent to the Public Analyst. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the milk fat found was 2.8 per cent and milk solids not fat were 8.7 per cent and thus, milk fat was deficient by 30 per cent of the minimum prescribed standards. After receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, Govt. Food Criminal Revision No.507 of 1995 2 Inspector instituted a compliant and the prosecution was launched against the petitioner. After notice of accusation was served upon the petitioner, prosecution examined three witnesses. PW-2, OP Kalra, Food Inspector gave the details of preparation of sample and supported the averments made in the complaint. Dr.Kapil Kumar appeared as PW-1 and also testified to the same effect. In the defence, DW-1 Giano Devi, DW-2 Krishan Kumar and DW-3 Shubh Karan were examined to say that the milk was not for sale and same was for the use of the relative Smt.Giano Devi, who was hospitalized at that time. Both the Courts below have not relied upon the testimony of defence witnesses on the ground that the version stated by them is an afterthought. Court has further come to the conclusion that non-examination of independent witnesses will not affect the case of the prosecution. In the present case, milk was purchased on January 25, 1988. Report of the Public Analyst was received on 1st February, 1988. Once the report of the Public Analyst was received on 1st February, 1988, the prosecution in the present case, was launched on 3rd March, 1988. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was served to the accused on 8th March, 1988. Petitioner appeared in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class) on 8th April, 1988 and furnished his bail bonds. It seems that non-adherence to the provision of Section 13(2), argument was raised at one point but it has not been taken to the logical conclusion before both the courts below. Mr. Dhankar has very fairly contended that he will confine his argument regarding reduction in the sentence as in the present case sample was taken in January 1988 and since then 20 years have elapsed. He has relied upon a single Bench judgment of this Court in Tirath Ram vs. State of Punjab, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) (69), to contend that in that case, protracted trial of 16 ½ years has been taken into consideration and the sentence was reduced to already undergone. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that when the statement was recorded under Criminal Revision No.507 of 1995 3 Section 313 Cr.P.C., age of the petitioner was 30 years and now he is more than 50 years of age. It will be apposite here to reproduce para 19 of the judgment cited by counsel for the petitioner in Tirath Ram vs. State of Punjab, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) (69), which reads as under: “19. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was 50 years of age at the time of recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and he would be, by now, fairly advanced in the age, as also the fact that he has faced the agony of criminal proceedings for the last more than 16-1/2 years, I am of the opinion that the sentence awarded to him deserves to be reduced to that of fine. For this view, I draw support from a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Krishan Gopal Sharma and another v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, 1996(2) RCR (Criminal 591: 1996 (1)F.A.C. 258 (SC) and also from the judgments of Allahabad High Court in Bhageloo v. State of U.P. and another, 1996(2) F.A.C. 199 and of this Court in Mahavir v. State through Govt. Food Inspector, 2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 208 (P&H).” Counsel has further relied upon another judgment of Krisahan Kumar Narang vs. State (UT Chandigarh) 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 592, wherein taking the age and protracted trial into consideration sentence was reduced to already undergone. Counsel for the petitioner has stated, that petitioner has undergone about 25 days of his actual sentence. Since in the present case, protracted trial of more than 20 years has taken place, upholding the conviction of the petitioner, his sentence is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of find is enhanced from Rs.1800/- to Rs.10000/- and the fine shall be deposited within a period of three months from today, failing which he shall be required to serve the remaining sentence as awarded by the courts below. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge February 22, 2008. rps