Crl. Rev. No. 2131 of 2002 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 2131 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.09.2011 Mukesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sandeep Mann, Sr. DAG Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J. The revision petition is directed against the order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. dated 22.5.2002 as also the order of the first Appellate Court dated 23.10.2002. The petitioner has faced proceeding for having violated Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 when the sample of Mustard Oil was seized from his possession on 30.8.1994. The oil was stored in an iron drum meant for public sale. After complying with the rules, the sample was sent for analysis and report Ex. PE was received from Laboratory at Karnal, according to which the sample showed presence of suspended matter in appreciable quantity. The sample was examined in the Laboratory in Karnal on 9.9.1994. The petitioner exercised his right though at belated stage Crl. Rev. No. 2131 of 2002 (O&M) 2 to get the sample re-analysed from the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore on 27.5.1995. According to this report which is on record as Ex. PJ., the sample was not free from suspended matter but had also developed rancid odour. Since the sample was not the prescribed standards provided under the Act, the petitioner was convicted for having violating the provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- by learned trial Court which was reduced to 6 months with Rs. 1000/- as fine by the Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is discrepancy in the report of the public analyst as in the subsequent report Ex. PJ rancid odour was found prevalent whereas it was absent in the first report Ex. PE. He thus contended that in view of the variance in the report the same was unreliable and needed to be discarded. He further contended that the Court may consider the reduction of sentence considering the fact that the petitioner has faced the prosecution proceedings since 1994. As against this learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana has contended that there is no ambiguity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below as the sample was found to be adulterated. If the question of rancidity is ignored even then the sample contained suspended matter and was not in consonance with the standards prescribed by the Act. I have considered the contentions that have been raised before this Court and I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to show from any material available on record that the Crl. Rev. No. 2131 of 2002 (O&M) 3 sample seized from his possession which was meant for public sale, did not contain suspended matter and conform to the prescribed standards of the Act. The issue of rancidity of the sample is immaterial. Considering the fact that the first sample was analysed on 9.9.1994 while second was analysed on 27.5.1995, the delay in sending the second sample was purely on account of delay caused by the petitioner himself. In any eventuality rancidity is not been germane to the fact that the sample otherwise was adulterated since it did not conform to the prescribed standards and contained suspended material, and hence the adulteration was manifest. Thus there is no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and revision petition necessarily deserves to be dismissed as a dire consequences thereof. The Court has also examined the plea raised by the petitioner regarding the quantum of sentence. On due consideration of the matter and noticing the fact that the petitioner has faced the proceedings since 1994 and 17 years have passed since then, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be squarely met if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to that of already undergone and the fine component is enhanced in lieu thereof. In this regard I draw support from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Badri Prasad vs. State of M.P. , 1996(2) FAC 197. Consequently, the revision petition is disposed of with a direction that the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone by him, but he would now be required to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- which shall be deposited before the learned trial Court within a period of three months from today. The failure to do so Crl. Rev. No. 2131 of 2002 (O&M) 4 would result in revival of the sentence and dismissal of this revision petition. (MAHESH GROVER) 27.09.2011 JUDGE reena