Crl. Revision No.1799 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1799 of 2001 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 04, 2009 Sarwan .....PETITIONER Versus U.T. Chandigarh ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.V.S. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.G.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the respondent. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated November 22, 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated September 24, 1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, convicting the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, were upheld. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 8.9.1994 at 10.30 a.m., Food Inspector M.K.Sharma along with one Hemant Sehgal intercepted the petitioner in the area of Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh and found 20 Kilograms mixed milk in his possession, which he was carrying in a drum Crl. Revision No.1799 of 2001 -2- for public sale in Manimajra. The Food Inspector served a notice in Form VI on the petitioner in writing, which was thumb marked by the petitioner and attested by Hemant Sehgal, vide which the sample of the mixed milk was taken by the Food Inspector for analysis. The Food Inspector purchased 750 ml. of mixed milk on payment of Rs.4/-, after making the contents of milk homogeneous by stirring the same. The purchased milk was divided into three equal parts and was put into three dry and clean bottles and 20 drops of formaline were added in each bottle as preservative. Thereafter, the bottles were labelled, stoppered and then wrapped in a strong thick paper. After completion of the formalities at the spot, one part of the sample along with copy of Memorandum on Form VII was sent to Public Analyst for analysis and remaining two parts of sample along with two copies of memo on Form VII were deposited by the Food Inspector in the office of Local Health Authority. As per the report of the Public Analyst (Ex.PD), milk fat was found 3.3% and milk solids not fat 4.6%. Thus, both milk fat and milk solids not fat were found deficient by 27% and 46% , respectively, of the minimum prescribed standards. Accordingly, the Government Food Inspector filed complaint (Ex.PE) against the petitioner for commission of the offence under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a) (i) of the Act. In the said complaint, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as indicated above and the said conviction was upheld in appeal. After arguing for some time, when the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any illegality in the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, he submits that a lenient view may be taken on the quantum of sentence, keeping in view the facts that the petitioner has already undergone 19 days of imprisonment out of six months Crl. Revision No.1799 of 2001 -3- sentence awarded to him; he is the only bread earner in the family; he is not a previous convict; and has suffered protracted trial for the last about 15 years. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) RCR (Crl.) 371; Mohinder Lal v. State of Haryana, 2002 (4) RCR (Crl.) 749; Surjit Singh v. State (Chandigarh U.T.), 2005(3) RCR (Crl.) 583; and Sektu Ram v. State of Haryana, 2008(3) RCR (Crl.) 364. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not controverted the aforesaid period undergone by the petitioner nor cited any contrary judgment. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the alleged offence was committed long back in the year 1994 and since then the petitioner has faced the agony of protracted trial; he has already undergone imprisonment for nineteen days; he is not a previous convict; and is the only bread earner in the family, I am inclined to hold that calling upon the petitioner to undergo the remaining part of his sentence at this stage would be totally unfair and in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the order of conviction is upheld and the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. Therefore, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. With the above modification in the quantum of sentence, criminal revision is dismissed. March 04, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkg JUDGE Crl. Revision No.1799 of 2001 -4-