Criminal Revision No. 1451 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1451 of 2004 Date of Decision: 16.2.2010 Kuldeep Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. B.S. Saroha, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Hemlata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Kuldeep Singh son of Mange Ram is stated to be Milk Vendor. On 29.10.1995 at 7.00 A.M. at Indra Market, Vishkarma Road, Bahadurgarh, petitioner was found in possession of 15 liters of Cow milk. Petitioner was carrying Cow milk in a drum on a bicycle allegedly for public sale. Petitioner was intercepted by Government Food Inspector R.C. Arora who was accompanied by Dr. R.K. Pruthi, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bahadurgarh. The Government Food Inspector had also associated PW Krishan Kumar as an independent witness. The Government Food Inspector served notice upon the accused Ex.PA, purchased 750 mls. of Cow milk, paid Rs.7.50 ps. and obtained receipt Ex.PB. The milk was bottled in three dry, clean and Criminal Revision No. 1451 of 2004 2 empty bottles for taking sample in consonance with the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “1954 Act”) and Rules made thereunder were followed. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, for analysis. The Public Analyst submitted his report Ex.PE, according to which, milk fat was found 7.5% deficient and milk solids not fats were found 19% deficient of minimum prescribed standards. Thus, the milk was found to be adulterated. R.C. Sharma, Government Food Inspector, appeared as PW.1, Ved Pal, official of Local Health Authority, appeared as PW.2 and Dr. R.K. Pruthi appeared as PW.3. Thereafter, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances and pleaded innocence. In defence, accused had examined Chander Parkash as DW.1 and Gajraj Singh as DW.2. Mr. B.S. Saroha, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that he is not in a position to assail the conviction of the petitioner. It is submitted by counsel that the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of R.C. Arora, PW.1 and Dr. R.K.Pruthi, PW.3. Counsel further submits that the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a(i) of 1954 Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Counsel further submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner was also Criminal Revision No. 1451 of 2004 3 dismissed. However, sentence was reduced from one year to six months rigorous imprisonment. Counsel further submits that the amount of fine has been deposited. Counsel has prayed that in the present case sample was drawn on 29.10.1995. The petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial of more than 14 years. Counsel has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court rendered in Lajpat Rai v. State of Haryana 2010(1) Recent Criminal Reports 310 wherein this Court has noticed the entire case law, the judicial pronouncements of various Single Benches of this Court, taking into consideration protracted trial as mitigating circumstance, had reduced the sentence to already undergone. It is further submitted that the petitioner was taken into custody on 10.7.2004 and was ordered to be released by this Court on 22.7.2004. Thus, the petitioner has already undergone 12 days of his actual sentence. Taking into consideration submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and ratio of law noticed in Lajpat Rai's case (supra), sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Failure on the part of petitioner to deposit fine shall disentitle him to reduction of sentence. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 16, 2010 “DK”