IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1505 of 2003 Date of Decision 12.03.2010 Nahar Singh ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Kulwant Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This petition is directed against the judgment dated 10.07.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 10.01.2003, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was found having in his possession 20 litres of adulterated cow's milk, contained in a drum, for public sale. On receipt of the report of public analyst to the effect that the milk so purchased was not to the prescribed standards as laid down under the rules, complaint was filed against the accused. After recording the preliminary evidence, notice was issued to him to which he denied as incorrect. The complainant led further evidence. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Opportunity to lead defence was also given. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Criminal Revision No.1505 of 2003 -2- Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel has urged for extending some leniency to the accused on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was found or detected which may render the judgment as invalid. As such, these findings do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1993. The petitioner has already suffered a lot on account of protracted proceedings in the Courts. He has already undergone about 2½ months of the substantive sentence. The petitioner, being a poor and old man, suffering from various diseases is in the evening of his life. Under these peculiar circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 12.03.2010 mamta-II