IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1671 of 2001 Date of Decision 24.09.2010 Bhim Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Krishan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: The petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') has assailed the judgment dated 31.08.2001, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kaithal, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 14/15.10.1997, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 61(1)(a)(i) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for brevity 'the Act'). The allegations against the petitioner are that he was found having in his possession 100 litres of skimmed milk, contained in three drums. Sample was drawn, made it homogenous, put into three dry and clean bottles and perservative was added. The bottles were wrapped, stoppered and sealed and one bottle was sent for public analysis. On receipt of the report of public analyst to the effect that the milk so purchased was not to the prescribed standards as laid down under the rules, complaint was filed against him. After recording the preliminary evidence, notice was issued to Criminal Revision No.1671 of 2001 -2- the petitioner to which he denied as incorrect. The complainant led further evidence. The petitioner was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Opportunity to lead defence was also given. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Heard. Sufficient evidence has been led in order to establish the charge against the petitioner. The evidence, on the basis of which findings of fact have been returned by the Courts below, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. The occurrence in this case took place on 1990 and the petitioner has suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings since then. He has already undergone more than 2 ½ months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have been pointed out which may create a hurdle for reducing the sentence awarded against him, therefore, it is a fit case in which some reduction in the sentence could be made by enhancing the fine. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to six months. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, which would be paid by the petitioner within three months from today, failing which, he would serve the entire sentence as awarded by the Courts below. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 24.09.2010 mamta-II