Criminal Revision No. 742 of 1993 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 742 of 1993 Date of Decision: 06.02.2008 Om Parkash …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manmohan Sikka, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the Petitioner-State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) On 23.12.1987, the petitioner/accused was intercepted by Government Food Inspector and a sample of Cow milk was purchased from the petitioner. Public Analyst found milk to be deficient in 9% milk solids not fat. Since the Public Analyst found that the sample was not in accordance with minimum prescribed standards, petitioner was put to trial. Both the Courts below found the petitioner to be guilty and he was awarded one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo two months. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, at the outset has stated that he will not contest the present revision petition on merits as both the Courts below have returned findings of fact. He has stated Criminal Revision No. 742 of 1993 2 that since the sample was taken more than 20 years ago, petitioner has suffered a protracted trial. As per learned counsel, petitioner has undergone about 15 days behind the bars after the dismissal of his appeal. I find no justification in sending the petitioner behind the bars after 20 years of occurrence. Accordingly, he is ordered to be released on probation to maintain good conduct and behaviour and not to commit any offence under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for one year. Bonds to this effect shall be furnished by the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. However, sentence of fine is increased to Rs.20,000/- and the same shall be converted to cost of litigation. Petitioner will be called by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani to furnish bonds and deposit cost of litigation. Failure to do the needful will be construed as dismissal of present revision petition. With these modifications, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 6, 2008 “DK