Crl. Rev. No. 1075 of 1997 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * Crl. Rev. No. 1075 of 1997 Date of decision : September 22, 2009 * * * * * Kuldip Singh ............Petitioner Versus State of U.T, Chandigarh ...........Respondent * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. Narinder (Lucky), Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Paul Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for U.T., Chandigarh. * * * * * JORA SINGH, J. Kuldip Singh filed this revision against judgment dated 21.10.1997 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Vide this judgment, appeal against the judgment dated 18.4.1996 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh was dismissed. As per judgment dated 18.4.1996 passed by CJM, Crl. Rev. No. 1075 of 1997 :2: Chandigarh, petitioner was convicted under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of 1/ ½ months. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.8.1992 at about 6:45 p.m, Food Inspector, O.P Gautam had apprehended Kuldip Singh, petitioner when he was in possession of 20 Kgs. of mixed milk for sale in Chandigarh. Kuldeep Singh was in jeep No. H-01-D-7383. Food Inspector after disclosing his identity demanded sample of mixed milk by giving him notice Ex.PA into writing on form VI prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ` the PFA Rules'). 750 mls of mixed milk was purchased for analysis after making the same homogenous against payment of Rs.6/-vide receipt Ex.PB. Sample was divided into three equal parts and was put into three dry and clean bottles. 20 drops of farmaline were added as preservative in each bottle. The bottles were labelled stoppered, secured fastened then wrapped in strong thick papers. The paper slip having S.No.6261 and Code No. D-62/92 and signature of Local Health Authority Chandigarh was further wrapped around the sample from bottom to top and pasted with gum. Bottles were secured by means of strong twine thread and sealed with four distinct seals. Thumb impression of Kuldeep Singh was obtained on the paper slip and the wrapper. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh along with copy of memorandum form No.VII in a sealed pack by hand. A copy of the Crl. Rev. No. 1075 of 1997 :3: memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the bottle was also sent to Public Analyst in a sealed envelope separately under intimation to the Local Health Authority. Remaining two sealed samples were handed over to the Local Health Authority, Chandigarh along with two copies of memorandum in a sealed cover. As per report of the Laboratory, the sample was found to be adulterated. Complaint was instituted. Petitioner was ordered to be summoned to face trial. Evidence was led. Accused was ordered to be summoned. Accused moved an application to sent second sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Mysore. Case was ordered to be tried as warrant trial case. Pre charge evidence was led. After hearing counsel for the parties, accused was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the PFA Act. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. After charge again evidence was led. After the close of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of the accused was that he was the President of the Chandigarh Periphery Milk Union which came into existence in August 1992. There was a controversy amongst the Union and the Health Department. Union was agitating against the corrupt officials of the health Department. Accused was falsely implicated. In defence evidence, Bhagat Singh was examined. Crl. Rev. No. 1075 of 1997 :4: After hearing learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the evidence on the file, petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above. Against the judgment of the CJM dated 18.4.1996, appeal was preferred but the same was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per report of the Laboratory, marginal deficiency was noticed. No evidence on the file that milk was stirred. Independent witness was not joined. Due to enmity amongst the Union and Health Department, petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case. Learned State counsel argued that in case there is marginal deficiency then no question of acquittal. Evidence shows that the milk was stirred and made homogenous. If independent witness was not produced then story is not to be ignored. If there was enmity amongst the Union and the Health Department then complaints should have been sent to the higher authority. I have gone through the evidence on the file and submissions of learned State counsel seem to be genuine one. As per report of the Public Analyst, milk fat was 5.4% and milk solids not fat was 8.05%. Ex.PF is the report of the laboratory. As per the report of the laboratory sample of the milk did not conform the standards laid down for mixed milk under the provisions of the Act and rules thereof. Second sample was also sent to Director, Central Food Laboratory. Ex.PH is the report but as per both the reports, marginal deficiency was noticed. But no authority was cited by the learned counsel that if there is marginal deficiency then on this short Crl. Rev. No. 1075 of 1997 :5: ground story is to be ignored. Both the Courts are unanimous qua the apprehension of the petitioner. Second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that no evidence on the file that milk was stirred and made homogenous before the purchase of sample. But submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be not correct one. Food Inspector and the recovery witnesses categorically stated that before purchasing sample milk was made homogenous by stirring. Point raised by the defence counsel was taken into consideration by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that milk was stirred and made homogenous before the purchase of sample. Next allegation of the defence counsel was independent witness not produced. But non-examination of the independent witness is not fatal. Food Inspector should make an effort to join independent witness but if no one joins then story is not to be ignored. In case independent witness joins and fails to appear as won over by the accused and appears in defence even then story is not to be ignored. Before the present occurrence, petitioner had no enmity with the Food Inspector so without enmity there was no reason to implicate the petitioner. In case petitioner was the President and there was a tussle amongst the Union and the Health Department then complaints could easily be sent to the higher authorities. Till today, no complaint has been made to any authority. No document on the file that petitioner was a President of the Union and had enmity with the Food Inspector. Revisional Court is not to Crl. Rev. No. 1075 of 1997 :6: re-evaluate and asses the evidence on file. If in case any substantial question of law is involved then revisional Court is to interfere but in the present case there are minor discrepancies and contradictions. Same were rightly ignored by the Courts below. Last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that sample was taken on 19.8.1992. At that time, petitioner was 32 years old. Petitioner has suffered financially as well as mentally. Petitioner has already undergone more than 1 month of imprisonment out of total six months of awarded sentence as per order of the trial Court. So lenient view be taken. State counsel states that no objection if lenient view is taken provided fine is enhanced. Undisputedly, petitioner was apprehended on 19.8.1992 and at that time he was 32 years old. Petitioner is the first offender and belongs to poor family. Petitioner has already undergone more than one month of sentence. Petitioner is to become hard criminal if again sent to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. As the petitioner has faced the agony of trial for the last about 17 years then keeping in view the aggravating as well as mitigating circumstances, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be fully met if sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. Therefore, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. Petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.20,000/- as fine within a period of two months before the trial Court. In case petitioner failed to deposit 20,000/- within two months Crl. Rev. No. 1075 of 1997 :7: with the trial Court then revision would stand dismissed automatically. With this modification, revision is disposed of. September 22, 2009 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE