Criminal Revision No.578 of 2001. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No.578 of 2001. Date of decision:5-9-2008 Daya Nand. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana. ...Respondent. ... Coram; Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. R. A. Sheoran Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Goripuria, DAG Haryana. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. The petitioner is aggrieved against the judgment dated 19.3.2001 delivered by Shri Shekhar Dhawan, Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment/order dated 19.9.1998 passed by Shri J.R. Duggal, the then Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.1.1986, Criminal Revision No.578 of 2001. -2- S.K.Sharma, Government Food Inspector, Charkhi Dadri, after disclosing his identity inspected the hotel of the accused situated at Bus Stand, Bound Kalan. The accused was having 15 kilograms of Atta of wheat contained in a tin for public sale. The Food Inspector demanded sample of Atta after giving notice Exhibit PA. He purchased 600 grams of Atta on payment of Rs.1.40P against receipt Exhibit PB. Spot memo Exhibit PC was prepared. Sample was divided in three equal parts and sealed at the spot. After completion of necessary formalities, sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and remaining two parcels of the sample were sent to the Local Health Authority along with prescribed proforma. As per report of the Public Analyst, the sample was found to be adulterated and complaint was filed against the accused/petitioner in the Court. The accused was summoned and charge-sheeted on 3.1.1997 for the commission of offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the trial stage, the prosecution examined S.K.Sharma, Food Inspector, Doctor Krishan Kumar and Roshan Lal, Clerk from the office of Local Health Authority, Charkhi Dadri. Criminal Revision No.578 of 2001. -3- Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him. In defence, the accused examined Panna Ram as DW-1 and closed his defence evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no independent witness has been examined. It is also not borne out from the record that any effort was made to join the independent witness. So, the prosecution story is doubtful. I have carefully considered the submission but do not find any force in the same. Sometimes the Courts insist on independent corroboration when from the perusal of testimony of official witnesses, some doubt is created in the prosecution version. However, in the present case, the official witnesses who have drawn the samples have with-stood the test of lengthy cross- examination and nothing could be brought on the file to discard their sworn testimony. Otherwise also, the concurrent findings of both the Courts below do not leave any scope for interference,moreso in revision, particularly when there is no material on the record to discard the prosecution version. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further Criminal Revision No.578 of 2001. -4- submitted that wheat Atta was not meant for sale. It was meant for use by the accused. It has been further submitted that sample has not been drawn after mixing the Atta. It has been further submitted that the tea shop of the appellant was on the road side and small quantity of ash was found in the Atta and that may be result of dust. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon authority in case Suresh Kumar Versus State of Haryana, 2008 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 555 to support his contention regarding reduction of sentence. In para No.8 of the said judgment, it has been observed as under:- “To controvert this submission, Mr. Rathee contended that if the butter in question had not been put for sale, why the petitioner sold it to the Food Inspector. This contention finds favour with me. J.S.Chauhan, PW, Government Food Inspector has stated in so many words that by serving notice Ex.PA, he purchased 450 grams of butter vide receipt Ex.PB from the petitioner. If the butter was not kept for sale, the petitioner should Criminal Revision No.578 of 2001. -5- have refused to sell the same to this witness. So, this contention being bereft of any merit, is also turned down.” The Atta was purchased from the petitioner by the Food Inspector by way of sample and no protest was made by the petitioner at that time. He issued receipt, in this regard which has been placed on the file. So, the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the Atta was not meant for sale cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the receipt for the purchase of Atta is for Rs.1.40 P whereas in the complaint and the prosecution witnesses have stated that the payment of Rs.1.50 P was made and this discrepancy goes to the foot of the case. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in the same. The above-said discrepancy is not so glaring which could throw out the case of the prosecution particularly when there are concurrent findings of the Courts holding the petitioner guilty. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has suffered protracted trial for 22 years as the occurrence relates to the year 1986 and as such his Criminal Revision No.578 of 2001. -6- sentence may be reduced to already undergone. To support his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon authority in case Suresh Kumar (supra). I have carefully considered the said submission. The same carries weight. The sample was taken as far back as in the year 1986. More than 22 years have elapsed. Sending the petitioner in custody after 22 years would not be in consonance with justice. He remained in custody for some period after his conviction. The ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone by him but the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. In the light of above discussion, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone by him but the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of said amount, the petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. With the above modification in the sentence, this Criminal Revision stands disposed of. A copy of the judgment be sent to the learned trial Court for strict compliance. September 5th ,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge