Criminal Revision No.2299 of 2002 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.2299 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.8.2010 Narinder Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.John Kumar, Advocate for Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. Narinder Kumar (petitioner) and Satish Kumar were convicted for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 vide judgment dated 3.9.1998 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti. Vide order of the even date, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Aggrieved by the same, they filed an appeal. Vide judgment Criminal Revision No.2299 of 2002 (O&M) 2 dated 18.11.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, appeal qua Satish Kumar was accepted and he was acquitted of the charge framed against him, whereas, appeal qua Narinder Kumar was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition by the petitioner. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “Briefly stated the case of prosecution is that the complainant was appointed as Food Inspector under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide Punjab Govt. Notification No.5204-2 HB/411 dated 20.4.1976. He inspected the premises of Narinder Kumar son of Nagin Chand on 27.5.1992 at 11.30 a.m. situated at Waddi Mandi, Patti and found Narinder Kumar in possession of 30 kg of Basin for sale in a wooden box/tub. The complainant demanded the sample of Basin from the accused from giving him notice in writing on from VI as per rules. 600 gram of Basin was purchased after homogenization of the same for analysis from the accused for Rs. 7.50 paise and the same was divided into three equal parts and put into three dry and cleaned bottles. The bottles were labelled, stoppered and then wrapped in a strong thick paper. A paper slip bearing signature No.17 May/5k/92, slip No.51958 mg. 52 of Criminal Revision No.2299 of 2002 (O&M) 3 Local Health Authority was pasted on the wrapper put on each bottle. The signature of Dr.Manjeet Singh and Dr.Jagdit Singh were taken in lieu of Narinder Kumar having refused to put his signature/thumb impression as prescribed under the Act. One sealed sample bottle was sent to Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh on 29.5.1992 by hand. The sealed container of the remaining parts of the sample and two copies of the memos were sent in a sealed packet to the Local Health Authority, Amritsar on 27.5.1992. Persons from the locality were requested to join and witness the recovery but no one came to witness the same. Report of the Public Analyst was received that contents of the sample contained wheat starch as an admixture; whereas Basin should not contain any forgein ingredients. Therefore, the contents of the sample were adulterated. Narindedr Kumar accused kept the said food articles for the purpose of sale and violated the provision of Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and both the accused were accordingly summoned.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment and has prayed that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. In support of his arguments Criminal Revision No.2299 of 2002 (O&M) 4 learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Risala v. State of Haryana, (O&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 Basin was drawn on 27.5.1992. Since then the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment is reduced to already undergone by him and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months. Non deposit of fine shall render this revision petition as dismissed. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE August 30, 2010 anita