IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2084 of 2003 Date of Decision : 21.12.2010 Jaspal Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.H.L.Bhatia, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: The petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') has preferred this petition against the judgment dated 01.10.2003, passed by the Appellate Court at Kurukshetra, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 16/19.02.2001, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity 'the Act'). However, in appeal, the sentence was reduced to six months. No argument has been raised on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the conviction. However, it was urged that two test reports of Desi Ghee, recovered from the dairy as well as house of the petitioner, were received on the basis of which two complaints were filed. The samples were taken on the same day and the trial was also concluded on the one and the same day in which he was convicted and sentenced accordingly, therefore, the sentences awarded in both the cases be made to run concurrent. The other prayer made by the counsel is that since the petitioner Criminal Revision No.2084 of 2003 -2- is a poor man; he has left the said business and he has a big family to support, therefore, it would be appropriate if some reduction in the sentence could be made. Both the arguments have been considered while deciding the Criminal Revision No.2083 of 2003 and it has been directed that sentences in both the cases would run concurrently. However, this Court was not inclined to reduce the sentence. Dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, for compliance. Amicus Curiae would be at liberty to claim remuneration from the competent authority as per rules. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 21.12.2010 mamta-II