In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1221 of 2001 Date of Decision:February 20, 2009 Chander Bhan ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Maharaj Kumar ,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana *** SABINA, J. Chander Bhan-petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short – 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal vide judgment dated 13.11.1999 Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide judgment dated 19.7.2001. Aggrieved by the same petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the appellate court in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:- “ Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was instituted against the accused- Crl. Revision No. 1221 of 2001 -2- Chander Bhan on the allegation that on 31.3.1992 Kali Ram, Government Food Inspector, Karnal, Intercepted accused Chander Bhan in Sector -14 near the office of Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Karnal, in the presence of Dr. B.L.Madan. Accused was possessing about 50 kgs of cow milk for public sale contained in three drums. The Government Food Inspector demanded a sample of cow's milk after supplying him the notice in writing on Form-VI prescribed under the Act. The cow milk was purchased after mixing the contents properly and it was made uniform for analysis. The accused was paid a sum of Rs. 3.75 paisa vide receipt Ex. PB. The sample was divided into three equal parts and was put in three dry and clean bottles. Formalin was added as preservative in each bottle. The bottles were stoppered tightly and were sealed as per rules. One sealed bottle along with a memorandum in Form- VII was sent to Public analyst Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis through railway parcel. The other two sealed bottles of sample along with two copies of memos and form-VII were deposited with the local Health Authority, Karnal vide No. 3/K dated 31.3.1992 in a sealed packet. A copy of the memorandum in Form -VII and a specimen impression of seal used to seal the sample and packet were sent to Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh separately through registered post vide post office receipt No. 2687 dated 31.3.1992. After the receipt of the report from the office of Public Analyst, the sample was found Crl. Revision No. 1221 of 2001 -3- not conformed to the standards laid down for cow's milk under the Act. The milk solids not fat contents fell below the minimum specified limit of 7%. As such the Food Inspector being the duly authorised person to institute the prosecution, filed a complaint Ex. PF before the Magistrate. The Local Health Authority sent the intimation regarding the launching of prosecution along with the copy of the report to the accused vide registered letter. The accused applied to the court to avail his right under Section 13(2) of the Act and the lower court sent the sample to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Mysore and vide report Ex. PG of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, the sample was found adulterated since the milk solids not fat fell below the minimum specified limit of 8.5%.” 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 learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Risala vs. 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 enhance 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 31.3.1992. Since then Crl. Revision No. 1221 of 2001 -4- 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 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 February 20, 2009 PARAMJIT