Criminal Revision No.234 of 2001 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.234 of 2001 Date of decision: 20.3.2009 Satish ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. N.K.Sanghi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Satish-petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short- “the Act”) vide judgment dated 14.6.1999 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad vide order dated 15.6.1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Faridabad vide judgment dated 14.2.2001. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- Criminal Revision No.234 of 2001 2 “Brief facts of prosecution case are; that on 20.1.1990 at 8.15 a.m. Sh.Abhey Ram, Govt. Food Inspector along with Dr. J.M.Gandhi, District Health Officer were present at Faridabad Service Station, Petrol Pump, G.T.Road for food sampling; when the accused now facing trial was intercepted with one drum of cow milk containing 20 kgs. of cow milk for public sale. The Govt. Food Inspector disclosed his identity and expressed his intention to seize the milk for analysis. The G.F.I. Served the accused with notice Ex. PA and after mixing the milk in the drum properly, purchased 750 ml. of cow milk on payment of Rs. 3/- vide receipt of Ex. PB. The milk so purchased was put into three dry, clean empty bottles in equal parts. 20 drops of 40% formalin were added as preservative in each bottle. The bottles were stopped tightly and sealed on the neck with the seal of Medical Officer. The bottles were labelled and wrapped in strong thick paper. The ends of the paper were pasted with gum. A paper slip bearing code number and signatures of Local Health Authority, Faridabad was pasted on each bottle from top to bottom. Each bottle was secured by means of strong twine and sealed with the seals of Medical Officer and Food Inspector at the spot. Signatures of Satish was obtained in such a manner that both paper slip and the Criminal Revision No.234 of 2001 3 wrapper on each sealed bottle carry a part of his signatures. Notice Ex. PA, receipt Ex. PB, spot memo Ex.PC and label Ex.PC/1 were prepared at the spot. Public persons were present at the time of these proceedings but none was ready to join as witness. 3. One sealed bottle along with memorandum in form-VII was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana, Karnal for analysis in a sealed packet through railway parcel. Other two sealed bottles of sample along with two copies of memo in Form No. VII were deposited with Local Health Authority on 22.1.1990 vide No.3 in a sealed packet. A copy of memorandum in Form-VII and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the sample box were sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Karnal separately by registered post vide postal receipt No.1815 dated 22.1.1990. The Public Analyst, Haryana, Karnal vide his report Ex.PD found the sample adulterated and milk solid no fat was found 7.1% and milk fat was found 4.9% and founding the sample not conforming to the standards of Cow's milk, the present complaint was filed against the accused to stand his trial for the commission of aforesaid offence.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment Criminal Revision No.234 of 2001 4 and has prayed that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Risala v. State of Haryana, (P&H) 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 239, wherein it was held that since the petitioner had suffered protracted trial of 24 years, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence as already undergone. However, the sentence of fine was enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was a previous convict. The sample of milk was drawn on 20.1.1990. Since then the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings. In these circumstances, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to as already undergone by him and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of one month. Non deposit of fine shall render this revision petition as dismissed. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE March 20, 2009 anita