Crl. Rev. No. 436 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No.436 of 1996 Decided on : 28-07-2009 Ramesh Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, DAG, Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner has been convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Trial Court and awarded a sentence to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In appeal, Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide its order dated 14.6.1996 reduced the awarded sentence to six months. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a sample of milk was seized from him on 24.2.1988. The sample was of cow's milk and on analysis it was found to be containing fat to the extent of 2.9% against 4% standard while milk solids were found to be 10.2%. In an application moved by the petitioner, the sample was examined again by Central Food Laboratory and in this examination fat was found to be 2.2% while milk solids 10.5%. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that sample was seized in the year 1988 and the petitioner has faced the agony of trial for last 21 years and that he had already undergone a Crl. Rev. No. 436 of 1996 2 sentence of one month out of the total sentence of six months awarded to him. He further contends that no fruitful purpose will be served if he is now confronted with the situation of undergoing remaining part of the sentence. Therefore, he contends that his plea of reduction of sentence or in the alternative alteration of sentence to fine may be considered sympathetically. The petitioner was aged 24 years at the time of seizure of the sample and now he is much advanced in age. He further states that he does not wish to address the Court on merits. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contends that in view of the fact that sample of the milk could not meet the prescribed standards and was found to be adulterated, petitioner deserves no leniency. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. There is, indeed, no doubt that compassion should not be shown to persons, who are playing with the life and health of people, but, at the same time, noticing the fact that the sample was taken in the year 1988 and the conviction and sentence was reduced by the appellate Court in the year 1996 and also the fact that 13 years have passed thereafter, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail after such a long period and it would be in the fitness of things if the sentence awarded to him is reduced to that of fine. For this view, I draw support from a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Krishan Gopal Sharma and another versus Government of NCT of Delhi 1996(1) FAC 258 = (1996) 4 SCC 513 and also from the judgments of Allahabad High Court in Bhageloo Versus State of U.P and another 1996 (2) FAC 199 and of this Court in Mahavir Versus State through Govt. Food Inspector Crl. Rev. No. 436 of 1996 3 2000(4) RCR (criminal) 208. In Shri Krishan Gopal Sharma's case (supra), their Lordships of the Apex Court observed as follows:- “14 .... It should be emphasised that strict adherence to Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules framed thereunder should be insisted and enforced for safeguarding the interest of consumers of articles of food. In the Constitution Bench decision in Tejani case { f(1974) 1 SCC 167 } it has been indicated that in order to prevent unmerited leniency in the matter of awarding sentence for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the legislature by amendment has incorporated the provision of minimum sentence. But it has also been indicated that the court, for adequate and special reasons, may bring down the minimum sentence. The Constitution Bench has also observed that all violations of provisions of the Act and Rules need not be treated alike because “there are violations and violations”. In the special facts of these cases, it appears to us that a deterrent punishment of imprisonment is not called for and imposition of fine will meet the ends of justice. The criminal cases were initiated on the basis of samples taken in 1987. The accused- applicants have already faced the ordeal of criminal trials for a number of years. In the aforesaid circumstances, further agony of criminal trials need not be prolonged. Conclusion of the criminal cases will also save time and expenditure of the respondent. Crl. Rev. No. 436 of 1996 4 15. In that view of the matter, we direct for quashing the criminal cases in question on payment of costs of Rs.7500/- in each of these appeals as in our view on conviction of the appellants in the criminal cases initiated against them, such fine would have met the ends of justice. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.” Consequently, the present revision petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (i)the conviction of the petitioner shall remain intact; (ii)the sentence of the imprisonment awarded to him is converted to that of fine of Rs.10,000/- which shall include the fine of Rs.2000/- already deposited by the petitioner. (iii) The fine shall be deposited before the Trial Court within a period of four months from today, failing which the conviction of the petitioner as awarded by the Court below shall stand revived. July 28, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge