IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1219 of 2000 Date of decision: 27th January, 2010 Rajinder Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present Revision Petition has been preferred by Rajinder Singh son of Manphool Singh, milk vendor resident of village Bhagan, Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat. On 28th September, 1991 at about 7.00 a.m. Lajpat Rai Punhani, Govt. Food Inspector accompanied by Dr.P.K. Sethi, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Ganaur intercepted the accused Rajinder Singh at Bus Stand village Bhagan on G.T. Road. Petitioner was found in possession of 40 kg of cow milk in two drums for public sale. The Food Inspector served a notice Ex.PA upon the accused petitioner and purchased 750 ml of cow milk by paying Rs.4.50. The milk for the purposes of sample, was purchased after mixing the whole contents properly and making it uniform. The sample was drawn in consonance with the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) and Rules made thereunder. The Govt. Food Inspector had joined one Janender Singh son of Harender Singh resident of village and Post Office Bhagan as independent witness. The sample was sent to Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst Criminal Revision No.1219 of 2000 submitted report Ex.PG, in which it was stated that milk fat was 3.7 percent and milk solid not fat was 8.7 percent and thus, milk fat was 7.5 percent deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. After the report of the Public Analyst, complaint was instituted and the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Sonepat on 18th November, 1992 charged the petitioner for offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined Lajpat Rai Punhani, Govt. Food Inspector as PW-1 and Dr.P.K. Sethi, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Ganaur as PW-2. Ram Parsad, Clerk from the Local Health Authority was examined as PW-3. Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied all the incriminating circumstances and pleaded innocence. The trial Court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The appellate Court upheld the conviction, maintained the sentence and had dismissed the appeal. The trial Court relied upon the testimony of PW-1 Lajpat Rai Punhani, Govt. Food Inspector and PW-2 Dr.P.K. Sethi, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Ganaur, and held that the milk was duly stirred and sample was made homogeneous, therefore, the contention of the defence counsel that the milk was not stirred was not accepted. Similarly, contention that Section 13(2) of the Act has not been complied with, was also not accepted, as the Court found that PW-3 Ram Parsad, Clerk from 2 Criminal Revision No.1219 of 2000 the Local Health Authority proved postal receipt Ex.PW3/B and forwarding letter Ex.PW3/A to say that report of the Public Analyst was also sent to the accused. Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner, having repeated the arguments, which have been noticed above and which were rightly rejected by the two courts below, submitted that in the present case, sample was drawn on 28th September, 1991. A period of more than 18 years is going to elapse. Petitioner is in corridors of the Courts since then and has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial. Furthermore, it is submitted that when the statement of the accused was recorded on 11th March, 1999 while determining quantum of sentence, trial Court had noticed the age of the petitioner as 30 years. It is submitted that almost two decades are going to elapse and sending the petitioner behind the bars may not serve any purpose. Counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone one month and three days of his actual sentence. This Court in ‘Harvinder Singh v. State of Haryana’ 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 409 considered the entire case law of this Court and came to the conclusion that due to long pendency of the case, protracted trial can be considered as mitigating circumstance for reducing the sentence to already undergone. Taking into consideration the circumstances spelt out by the counsel for the petitioner and noticed above, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone and the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The fine shall be deposited within three months after receipt of certified copy of this order. In case no fine is deposited, the benefit in reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner. 3 Criminal Revision No.1219 of 2000 With the modifications in sentence noticed above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE January 27, 2010 rps 4