IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1092 of 2000 Date of decision: 3rd March, 2010 Kashmiri Lal … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner was prosecuted in a complaint filed by Rupinder Kumar, Govt. Food Inspector, Mansa. The trial Court held that the petitioner had violated Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) and therefore, he had committed offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. After having found the petitioner guilty of the offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court and had dismissed the appeal. The Govt. Food Inspector had inspected the premises of the petitioner and found him in possession of 5 kg of skimmed milk contained Criminal Revision No. 1092 of 2000 in a drum. The milk was meant for public sale. The Food Inspector purchased 750 ml of the skimmed milk after making payment of Rs.3/-. It is stated that the milk was stirred and made homogeneous for analysis. The purchased sample was divided into three equal parts and was bottled in three empty, dry and clean bottles. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab Chandigarh. The Public Analyst submitted its report Ex.PF and found that the milk fat was 0.1% and the milk solids not fat was 7.4%, therefore, milk solid not fat was deficient by 15%. Thereafter, the petitioner was chargesheeted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Dr.Rupinder Kumar, Food Inspector appeared as PW-1 in the pre-charge evidence and deposed regarding inspection of the premises and purchase of the sample milk. This witness further deposed regarding the procedure followed for drawing the sample. The sample was taken in consonance with the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder. After the charge was framed, this witness was subjected to cross examination. Dr.K.K. Singla, who was posted as Medical Officer appeared as PW-2 and corroborated the testimony of Dr.Rupinder Kumar PW-1. Teja Singh, an official of the local health authority was examined as PW-3. He had taken the sample to the Public Analyst. Bhagwant Singh, Senior Assistant from the office of Civil Surgeon, Mansa appeared as PW-4. He proved Ex.PW3/A as the forwarding/covering letter, which accompanied the sample. Mr.L.S. Sidhu, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has stated that the trial Court has placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of Dr.Rupinder Kumar PW-1 and Dr.K.K. Singla PW-2. This witness stated that an application was filed by the petitioner in the Court praying that the second sample be sent to the Central Food Laboratory, but the 2 Criminal Revision No. 1092 of 2000 same was rejected on the ground that the sample had lost its originality. I have perused the file. In the present case, the sample was taken on 12th November, 1992. The application for sending the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory was rejected on 17th September, 1998, i.e. after a period of six years. Furthermore, the order declining the prayer for sending the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory for re-analysis had attained finality. No revision was filed against that order. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he will not assail the conviction of the petitioner and will pray to this Court that taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial for about 18 years, the sentence awarded upon him be reduced to that of already undergone. Learned counsel has further submitted that when the sample was drawn, petitioner was aged about 27 years. Now the petitioner is about 45 years of age and he is the sole bread earner of his family. It is submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence before or after the present occurrence. It is further submitted that petitioner has already undergone one month and eight days of his actual sentence. Taking into consideration the protracted trial, especially the fact that petitioner is aged about 45 years and his antecedents, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence awarded upon the petitioner. This Court has dealt with the entire case law and noticed the consistent view taken by this Court in ‘Lajpat Rai v. State of Haryana’ 2010(1) RCR Criminal 311. Therefore, in view of the ratio of law noticed in Lajpat Rai’s case (supra) and submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The fine shall be 3 Criminal Revision No. 1092 of 2000 deposited in the trial Court within three months from today, failing which the petitioner shall undergo the sentence awarded by the trial Court. With the modification in sentence, ordered above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 3, 2010 rps 4