IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1441 of 2004 Date of decision: 15th February, 2010 Babu Ram … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for Mr. Suresh Monga, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Hemlata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) On 12th January, 1995 at 8.00 p.m., petitioner was carrying 20 kg of cow milk in an iron drum. He was intercepted near G.T.M. Mills, Sirsa on Hisar Road by Govt. Food Inspector Ajmer Singh PW-1, who was accompanied by Dr.R.P. Dahiya. 750 ml of cow milk was purchased after making payment of Rs.6.00. The milk was divided into three equal parts and put in three dry, clean and empty bottles. The sample was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana, who reported that the quantity of milk fat was 5.3 percent and the quantity of milk solid not fat was 6.9 percent. Therefore, it was found that there was deficiency of 19 percent in milk solid not fat and the sample was not in consonance with the minimum standards prescribed. Thus, the milk was found adulterated. Thus, the petitioner was prosecuted under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’). Criminal Revision No.1441 of 2004 The two courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of Govt. Food Inspector Ajmer Singh PW-1 and Dr.R.P. Dahiya PW-3, and found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 7 read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of the petitioner and except to point out discrepancies, contradictions and improvements, he has no other argument to advance. Counsel has submitted that he is conscious that this Court cannot undertake exercise of re-appraisal and re-appreciation of evidence, while exercising revisional jurisdiction. However, counsel has submitted that in the present case, sample was taken in January, 1995. Petitioner has already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for more than 15 years. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon ‘Lajpat Rai v. State of Haryana’ 2010(1) RCR Criminal 311, where this Court had taken into consideration the judgment rendered by various Single Benches of this Court and had come to the conclusion that that right of speedy trial vests in the accused and protracted trial can be construed as one of the mitigating circumstances. Counsel has submitted that petitioner has already undergone more than two months out of his actual sentence of six months awarded by the trial Court. Taking into consideration the ratio of law laid down in Lajpat Rai’s case (supra), sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to that of already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited within three months after receipt of certified copy of this order. 2 Criminal Revision No.1441 of 2004 In case, fine is not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With the modifications in sentence noticed above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 15, 2010 rps 3