Crl. Rev. No.2593 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.2593 of 2010 Date of Decision: 25.11.2010 Rajpal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. S.K. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, A.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a revision petition against the order dated 28.08.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide which, the appeal against the judgment and order of conviction dated 02.09.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, was dismissed and the sentence was affirmed. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Crl. Rev. No.2593 of 2010 2 The accused-petitioner is a milk vendor. The milk was being taken by him for sale purpose. The same was made homogenous with the help of plunger. Independent witness was joined but he expired so he could not be examined as a witness. The sample was taken in compliance with the Act. As per the sample, the milk was adulterated. The milk fat was deficient by 17.5% and milk slides not fat were deficient by 12%. The deficiency was on the higher side. Therefore, the petitioner was rightly convicted for the offence. It was accordingly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should be released on probation as the occurrence had taken place on 22.09.1995 and he has faced the agony of protracted trial and appeal for more than 15 years. As such, notice in this case was issued only for considering the question of probation. However, upon notice, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the complaint was lodged way back on 22.09.1995, whereas, the presence of the accused was secured only on 29.01.2009. The delay in trial was on account of the petitioner himself. Therefore, his conduct in evading trial does not entitle him to the relief of probation. Thus, he faced trial only for one year. Moreover, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is on the lower side. In view of the above, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of probation. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merit. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 25.11.2010 JUDGE gurpreet