Crl.Revn. NO.1538 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revn. NO.1538 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: March 04, 2010 Gian Chand ...PETITIONER VS. State of Haryana ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: None for the petitioner. Ms.Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. MOHINDER PAL, J. This revision petition has been filed by petitioner Gian Chand against the judgment dated 17.07.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar whereby appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 16.09.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri convicting the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, was Crl.Revn. NO.1538 of 2003 2 dismissed except for reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from one year to six months rigorous imprisonment. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 01.09.1997 at about 7.30 A.M., Food Inspector, A.R.Nehra, who was accompanied by Dr.Naveen Sabharwal intercepted accused Gian Chand, who was having in his possession 18 kilograms of cow's milk in a drum for public sale. The Food Inspector had purchased 750 mls. of cow's milk for analysis against Rs.2.00 after disclosing his identity and serving a notice upon the accused. After purchasing the cow's milk, it was divided into three equal parts and was put in three dry, clean and empty bottles. The same were sealed properly. Thereafter, an intimation was sent to the Local Health Authority. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for its analysis. The Public Analyst vide report Ex.PD opined that the sample was adulterated because the milk solid not fat was 9% deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. After receiving the report of the Public Analyst, the present complaint was instituted. On the basis of pre-charge evidence adduced by the complainant, the accused was charged under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act. He did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Food Inspector, A.R.Nehra PW-1, Dr.Naveen Sabharwal PW-2 and Dr.R.K.Jain PW-3. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner Gian Chand denied the prosecution evidence and incriminating circumstance appearing against him and pleaded innocence. No evidence was led by the petitioner in defence. Crl.Revn. NO.1538 of 2003 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear in Court when the matter was taken up for hearing inspite of the fact that his presence was requisitioned by the Reader of this Court by displaying his name in the notice board through the Computer installed in the Court. I have heard the learned State counsel and have gone through the record of the case with her assistance. Sample of cow's milk taken by the Food Inspector from accused-Gian Chand, who was found in possession of 18 kilograms of milk, was found adulterated by the Public Analyst. Report of the Public Analyst showed that the milk fat in the sample was 6% and 'milk solid not fat' was 7.7% and, thus, there was deficiency with regard to milk fat in the sample by 9% of the minimum prescribed standards. The prosecution case has been supported by the evidence of A.R.Nehra, Food Inspector (P.W.1), Dr.Naveen Sabharwal (P.W.2) and Dr.R.K.Jain (P.W.3). The sample was taken by the Food Inspector A.R.Nehra (P.W.1) in the presence of Dr.Naveen Sabharwal (P.W.2). The prosecution witnesses had no enmity with the accused to falsely implicate him in this case. The evidence produced by the prosecution proved on record that the sample of cow's milk, meant for public sale, was seized from the accused, which was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis, who vide report Ex.PD found the same adulterated, as mentioned above. The petitioner-accused, thus, incurred the liability of offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act. As such, conviction of petitioner Salamudin under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act, as recorded by both the Courts below, is maintained. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that Sword of Damocles has Crl.Revn. NO.1538 of 2003 4 remained hanging over the head of petitioner-accused Gian Chand for the last more than twenty two years as the case relates to 01.09.1987 and the petitioner has faced incarceration for 11 days, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.5000/-. I order accordingly by modifying the sentence order. The petitioner will deposit the amount of fine in the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say, if the petitioner fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine of Rs.5,000/- in the trial Court within the period stipulated above, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment as awarded by both the Courts below shall remain unaltered. With the above conditional modification in the sentence order, this petition is dismissed. March 04, 2010 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE