Criminal Revision No. 524 of 1996 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 524 of 1996 Date of Decision: 19.2.2008. Ram Sarup …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. S.C.Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Mr. S.C.Sibal, learned senior counsel has stated that in the present case, he will not be assailing the findings of the two Courts below and will accept his conviction and confine his arguments only to quantum of sentence and grant of probation. Mr. Sibal has stated that in the present case, occurrence pertains to year 1991 and the petitioner has also suffered a protracted trial of about 17 years. He has further stated that the petitioner has undergone about 15 days of his actual sentence. The petitioner was convicted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar on 25.11.1993 and was awarded one year Criminal Revision No. 524 of 1996 2 rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “1954 Act”). In default of payment of fine he was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appeal preferred by petitioner was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, on 11.7.1996. The case of prosecution in short is that the petitioner was apprehended on 25.9.1991 at 11.40 A.M. and was found in possession of 15 Kgs. of boiled Cow's milk. Dr. Achhar Pal had purchased .750 ml. of boiled Cow's milk. After following necessary formalities regarding the sample, the same was sent to Public Analyst. Public Analyst has found that contents of milk were deficient of milk fact by 10% and in milk solids not fat by 25% of the minimum prescribed standard. Two Courts below have relied upon the testimony of PW.1 Dr.R.K.Jindal and PW.4 Dr. A.P.Chowdary. Mr. B.S.Rana, Advocate, assisting Mr. Sibal has stated that in the last 17 years, petitioner has not been found having committed any such offence. Taking into account protracted trial, antecedents of petitioner, no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars especially since the petitioner, as per head note of trial Court judgment, was 49 years old at the time of occurrence and now he is more than 65 years of age. The ends of justice will be met in case the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year to maintain good conduct and behaviour. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- and the same shall be treated as cost of litigation. He shall furnish bonds to this effect in the Court of learned Criminal Revision No. 524 of 1996 3 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar, and deposit cost of litigation on or before 15.5.2008. Non-deposit of fine shall render the present revision petition as dismissed. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 19, 2008 “DK”