Criminal Revision No. 389 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.389 of 2000 Date of Decision: December 15, 2009 Om Parkash and another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.S.S. Narula, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ajay Singh Ghangas, Additional AG, Haryana. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This is a revision in a case of conviction under Section 16(1)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the allegation that the petitioners were manufacturing and selling ice candies in which the presence of sucrose was less than the prescribed standard and there was presence of artificial sweetener(Saccharine). The main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the procedure under the cases to be titled as warrant cases was not followed. Secondly, he has argued that the independent witness was not examined. In my opinion the first argument would not be available since Criminal Revision No. 389 of 2000 2 learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show what prejudice (if any) was caused to the petitioners. As regards the non-examination of the independent witness; such a thing cannot be fatal for the prosecution and in the present case the trial Court has correctly and justly appreciated the statement of the prosecution witnesses including the complainant. Learned counsel has further argued that the occurrence is 17 years old and that the appellant No.2 was 82 years old at the time of filing of revision. This argument cannot be brushed aside lightly. It cannot be lost sight of that the infraction which may have been proved against the petitioners was at best a minor infraction. This is clear from the fact that the petitioners have been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of only six months. In these circumstances even while dismissing the revision I reduce the sentence of petitioner No.1 to a fine of Rs.50,000/- and that of the petitioner No.2 to the period which he has already undergone. With the aforesaid reduction in the sentence, this revision is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 15, 2009 sunita