Crl. Revision No. 328 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 328 of 2011 Date of Decision: 24.02.2011 Subhash Chander ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Dinesh Arora Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Man Mohan Sikka, DAG, Haryana. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against the concurrent conviction of the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. As per the prosecution, the petitioner was found having in his possession 5 KG of mustard oil for public sale, the sample of which on analysis by the Public Analyst, was found to be adulterated with the presence of Argemone Oil. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that mustard oil was found to contain Argemone which cannot be separated from it as its seeds are similar to that of mustard and get mixed up with it when the mustard Crl. Revision No. 328 of 2011 2 crop is harvested. He further states that Argemone oil is not available in the market and cannot be used for adulteration. The petitioner was sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 days. He further argued that the petitioner has faced the protracted agony of proceedings since 1998. It is further prayed that the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a period of 21 days. In Sektu Ram vs. State of Haryana reported in 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 364, this Court after noticing the entire law on the subject, held as follows:- “Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and also the fact that the offence in the present case was committed 12 years back, the petitioner has faced the agony to trial since then; he has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about two months; he is not a previous convict and even thereafter has not been involved in any such case; he has already learnt lesson of his life, accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for reducing the quantum of sentence deserves acceptance.” In my considered opinion, present is a case where even while enhancing the fine of the petitioner his sentence should be reduced to that which he has already undergone. Thus in view of the dictum of the law enumerated in the above said judgment and in view of the fact that petitioner has now undergone imprisonment for a period little less than one month, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to that which he has already undergone even while enhancing the fine from Rs.1000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Ordered accordingly. In case the fine is not deposited within a period of 2 months from today, the present revision shall be deemed to have Crl. Revision No. 328 of 2011 3 been dismissed and the petitioner liable to serve out remaining part of the sentence. Petition stands disposed of (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 24, 2011 sunita