Criminal Revision No.1068 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No.1068 of 2000 Date of Decision: 05.05.2010 Kharaiti Lal @ Kharyati Lal ........Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G., Haryana. ****** A.N.JINDAL, J. (ORAL) Kharyati Lal (petitioner) has assailed the judgment dated 25.08.2000, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 19.11.1999, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 16(1)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954. Sample of red chilli was taken and sent to Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, who gave his report Ex.PE disclosing that total ash was to the extent of 8.42% and ash insoluble in dilute Hcl 3.46% against the maximum prescribed standard of 8.0% and 1.3% respectively. He has further reported that to the extent of grit 2.8% was also detected. Sample was also found coloured with added prohibited Red oil soluble coaltar dye whereas it should have been free from the same. Criminal Revision No.1068 of 2000 -2- At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction but has sought indulgence of this Court on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise having gone through the records of the case, both the Courts below have duly observed that sample of red chilli was found to be adulterated and the accused was found selling of such substance. The evidence led by the prosecution has been appreciated by the Courts below in the right perspective. At the same time, no such irregularity, much less illegality or perversity has been pointed out by the counsel for the accused warranting interference in the impugned judgment at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the accused was 55 years old on 03.06.1991 i.e. at the time of commission of offence. As such, now he must be 75 years old and in the evening of his life, he has already left the business and has also undergone about two and half months of the substantive sentence. He has already faced the agony of protracted proceedings. As such, it would be expedient and in the interest of justice to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence and reduce the same. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. May 5, 2010 (A.N.JINDAL) Gagan JUDGE