Criminal Revision No. 343 of 2005 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 343 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.04.2010 Joginder Kumar ..............Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana ................Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr. Praveen Hans, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Raja Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana HARBANS LAL,J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 9.2.2005 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by Joginder Kumar accused against the judgment/order of sentence dated 24.2.2001 rendered by the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad vide which he convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven months and to pay a fine of Rs.1100/-under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1984 (for brevity the Act) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The facts in brief are that on 10.4.1993 Khushi Ram Gambhir, Government Food Inspector purchased 450 grams of 'Haldi' powder against payment of 16/- from the accused. Usual formalities were observed. One part of sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana Chandigarh for Criminal Revision No. 343 of 2005 (O&M) 2 analysis and the other two sealed bottles were handed over to the Local Health Authority. The said Public Analyst opined that “the sample gives total ash 9.80% and Ash insoluble in dilute HCL 1.74% against the maximum prescribed standard of 9.0% and 1.5% respectively and grit 1.02%.” On receipt of this report, the complaint was lodged under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act. The accused was charged under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. On close of the prosecution evidence when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence. In his defence, he did not adduce any evidence. After hearing the learned Government Food Inspector for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he went up in appeal, which was dismissed. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by the courts below, he has preferred this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Realizing that he would not be able to persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the findings returned by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction recorded by both the Courts below in any manner. On analyzing and scrutinizing the prosecution evidence with due care and caution, it transpires that no exception can be taken to the findings returned Criminal Revision No. 343 of 2005 (O&M) 3 by the both the said Courts. Consequently, conviction is maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been facing the agony of trial since 1993 and that being so, the sentence may be slashed to the already undergone. I have well considered this submission. Herein, as per the custody certificate taken on record, the petitioners have undergone two months and one day of the actual sentence. The petitioner while on bail during the pendency of this revision did not make misuse of this opportunity. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the already undergone (two months and one day) while maintaining the fine as well its default clause. With this modification in the order of sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed. Since the revision has been decided, all pending Criminal Miscellaneous,if any, also stand disposed of. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE April 21, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No