In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1161 of 2004 Date of decision: May 05, 2009 Sukhvinder Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Praduman Yadav, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 17.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 20.8.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (herein referred as 'the Act') The factual matrix of the case is that on 12.10.1993, Kirpal Singh Food Inspector along with Dr. T.R. Giridhar was present at G.T. Road near village Rattangarh, Shahbad. He intercepted the petitioner who was found in possession of 20 kgs of milk for public sale. He served notice on From-VI and purchased 750 mls of mixed milk. The sample milk was divided into three parts, two drops of 40% formalin were added as preservatives and the same were sealed into three separate clean and dry bottles. One sealed sample along with memorandum in Form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst that the milk fat was 18% deficient and milk solids not fat as 'nil' against the prescribed standard, a complaint was filed in the court. Crl. Revision No. 1161 of 2004 -2- *** After recording pre-charge evidence, the petitioner was charged for the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution led sufficient evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also failed. Arguments heard. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he being first offender and having already undergone four months of the substantive sentence must be extended some leniency. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1992 and the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. He has already undergone four months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub him as habitual offenders. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by him without alteration in the sentence of fine. Bail bond and surety bond furnished by him stand discharged. May 05, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge