CRR No.505 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.R. No.505 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.03.2011 Murari Lal …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. S.K. Biriwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) Custody certificate filed in Court is taken on record. This petition has been filed against the concurrent conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. As per the prosecution, the petitioner was found having in his possession 60 plastic bottles of 1 litre each of mustard oil for public sale. The report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample did not confirm to the prescribed standard laid down for mustard oil CRR No.505 of 2011 (O&M) -2- under item no.A.17.06 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The petitioner was sentenced to six months imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there were only marginal shortcomings in the sample. He further argued that the petitioner has faced the protracted agony of proceedings since 1999 which is around more than a decade. He further states that the petitioner has now been in custody for more than 1½ month. In Sektu Ram vs. State of Haryana reported in 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 364, this Court after noticing the entire law on the subject, held as follows:- “Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and also the fact that the offence in the present case was committed 12 years back, the petitioner has faced the agony to trial since then; he has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about two months; he is not a previous convict and even thereafter has not been involved in any such case; he has already learnt lesson of his life, accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for reducing the quantum of sentence deserves acceptance.” In my considered opinion, present is a case where even CRR No.505 of 2011 (O&M) -3- while enhancing the fine of the petitioner his sentence should be reduced to that he has already undergone. Thus in view of the dictum of the law enumerated in the above said judgment and in view of the fact that petitioner has now been in custody for more than 1½ month, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to that he has already undergone even while enhancing the fine from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner be released forthwith. In case the fine is not deposited within a period of 2 months from today the present revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the petitioner liable to be arrested to serve out remaining part of the sentence. Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 10, 2011 JUDGE ashish