IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R.No.1654 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.9.2010. Sunil Kumar ....................Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Rajesh Lamba,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mahabir Singh Sindhu,Addl.AG Haryana. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) By filing the instant revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C, petitioner had sought for setting aside judgment and order dated 5/9.2.2010 passed by learned CJM, Gurgaon convicting and sentencing him to undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as also order dated 4.5.2010 passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon dismissing the appeal. Briefly noticed the facts are that on 25.6.2009, Government Food Inspector-Prithvi Singh accompanied by Dr. Vishesh Kumar, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Gurgaon took nine samples (each sample containing 300 ml.) of “Swagat” brand packaged drinking water from the shop of the petitioner. After complying with the necessary formalities, the said samples were sent to Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis. On analysis, the samples were found adulterated and misbranded and accordingly the prosecution was launched against the petitioner. On the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, ld. CJM, Gurgaon convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. Hence, the present revision petition. Vide order dated 2.6.2010, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court issued notice only re: quantum of sentence. Thus the conviction of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 stands affirmed. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a poor person and the sole bread winner in his family consisting of three children and aged mother, therefore, a lenient view be taken with regard to quantum of sentence. The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 4.5.2010. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion no case for reducing the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is made out. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, which is already on the lower side and no case for further reducing the sentence is made out. Dismissed. 13.9.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge