Criminal Revision No. 1199 of 2003 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1199 of 2003 Date of decision: February 05, 2010 Ajit Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 20.5.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 19/20.11.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa, convicting and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 16 (1) (a) © of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein referred as 'the Act') Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on 29.11.1983 Government Food Inspector Shankar Dass Gupta along with Dr. R.C. Mittal intercepted the accused at bus stand Thana, Tehsil Pehowa. After serving notice upon the accused, he purchased 660 mls of cow's milk on payment of Rs.1.90 in order to get it analyzed. The sample so purchased was divided into three equal parts and 18 drops of formalin 40% were added as preservative in each bottle. The samples were duly sealed. One sealed bottle along with form VII with specimen impression was sent separately to the public analyist, Haryana through registered parcel, whereas, the Criminal Revision No. 1199 of 2003 -2- *** remaining two samples along with copies of memo on form VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Pehowa on29.11.1983. As per report of the Public Analyst, Haryana Chandigarh, the sample was found to be adulterated as the milk fat was found to be 4.3% against the prescribed 4.5% and milk solids not fat were found to be 7.9% against the prescribed 8.5%. Accordingly, a complaint was instituted in the court and the accused was summoned. On the application moved by the accused, the second sample was sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad for analysis which was lost in transit and the third sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore was reported to had been decomposed. After recording pre-charge evidence, the accused was charged under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution led evidence and ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments only to the extent that the sample was taken far back in the year 1983. The accused has been facing agony of the protracted trial for the last 27 years. He had remained imprisoned for some time out of the substantive sentence. As such, he has harped for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1983 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. The sentence less than minimum as prescribed under the Act could be awarded to the accused. Similar Criminal Revision No. 1199 of 2003 -3- *** observations were made in the judgments delivered in case Mahaavir vs. State through Govt. Food Inspector, 2000 (4) RCR (Criminal) 208 so also Manoj Kumar vs. State of Haryana 1988 (1) RCR 563. Notwithstanding the fact that right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished right guaranteed under the Constitution. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. But, the Constitution never wanted to allow the criminals to go scot free if some procedural delays are caused on the part of the accused or on the part of the court. However, the protracted trial could be considered as a mitigating circumstance for extending some leniency on the the quantum of sentence. Reliance if any could be placed on the judgment delivered in case Mahabir vs. State of Haryana, 1997 (3) RCC 469, wherein it was observed as under :- “The facts indicate that incident pertains to more than 14 years ago. The short question that thus arises for consideration is as to, “whether it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to undergo the rest of the sentence?” There is no over- emphasizing the fact that speedy trial which is the essence of the justice has been lost. A reference of some the precedents in this regard would make the position clear. In the case of Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 (2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 67, 11 years had expired before the revision petition was decided. Keeping in view the inordinate delay, the sentence was reduced to one already undergone. The same question again was considered by this Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar v. State (U.T.) Chandigarh, 1994 (1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 58. Therein the sample had been taken in the year 1984. 9 years had expired by the time the revision petition was heard. Once against the sentence was reduced to the one already undergone. The view point of the Delhi High Court is the same in the case of Vir Singh Chauhan v. State (Delhi), 1994 (2) Chandigarh Criminal Criminal Revision No. 1199 of 2003 -4- *** Cases 253. When the revision came up for hearing, 7 years had expired. Learned Singal Judge of the said Court reduced the sentence to the one already undergone. Before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Jannalal v. The State of M.P. 1995 (1) Prevention of Adulteration Cases 78, the same vew prevailed.” While relying upon the aforesaid judgment, again learned Singal Bench of this Court in case Puran Mal vs. State of Haryana, 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 527 considered the long pendency of the trial, agony faced on account of the protracted criminal proceedings, as good ground for reduction of the sentence, therefore, it would be expedient in the interest of justice and peculiar circumstances of the case to maintain consistency with the aforesaid judgment. In the present case also, the occurrence took place way back in the year 1983 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by him. However, the petitioner is further burdened to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as fine within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. February 05, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge