IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 726 of 2003 Date of Decision : March 03, 2010 Kewal Krishan ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate. Mr. Rajeev Takkar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat under Section 7 read with Section 16(1-A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the allegations that the sample of carbonated water taken from him on 2.5.1994 was found to contain suspended matter, which gave coliform count of 1800 per 100 ml. whereas it should be free from the same, it also gave Yeast and Mould count 18 of and 2860 per ml. against the maximum prescribed standard of 2 and 50, respectively, and hence the sample was bacteriologically unfit for human consumption. Vide judgment and order dated 9/10.12.1999, the trial Court convicted the petitioner of the aforementioned offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous Criminal Revision No. 726 of 2003 -2- imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 13.3.2003. He then filed the present revision, which was admitted on 10.7.2003 and he was ordered to be released on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Courts below. However, he states that the petitioner has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1994. When the petitioner was heard by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence he had stated that he was a poor person, his elder brother had died about 1½ earlier leaving behind two small children and there was no one else, except him to look after them, his parents were old and generally remained ill, and, he was not a previous convict. It is also stated that the petitioner has already undergone a period of about four months out of the sentence of one year imposed upon him and, therefore, his substantive sentence of imprisonment be reduced to that already undergone by him. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that the offence had been committed by the petitioner against the society at large and the adulterated food articles pose serious danger to the health of the public and, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency in the matter Criminal Revision No. 726 of 2003 -3- of sentence. In Parshadi V State of Haryana 2004(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 360, the sentence of a similarly situated accused, who stood convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was reduced to that already undergone by him as he had been facing the trial for a period of fourteen years. However, his fine was enhanced. While doing so, the Court relied upon a number of judgments viz Mahavir V. State through Govt. Food Inspector, 2000(4) RCR(Crl.) 208, Behari Lal V. State of (U.T.) Chandigarh, 2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 222, Des Raj V. The State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR 689, Vijay Kumar V. The State of Haryana 1996(2) RCR(Crl.) 554 (P&H), Mohinder Singh V. State (Chandigarh Administration), 1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 168 (P&H) and Satpal V. State of Haryana, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 15 (P&H). In Narinder Kumar V. State of Haryana 2008(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 288, this Court, once again, reduced the sentence of a similarly situated convict to that already undergone by him as the occurrence pertained to the year 1984. The petitioner herein has suffered protracted trial since the year 1994. He has not been shown to be a previous convict. He has to look after two children of his deceased elder brother, besides his old parents. Out of the sentence of one year imposed upon him, the petitioner has already undergone a period of about four months in jail. Criminal Revision No. 726 of 2003 -4- Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, so as to serve the remaining sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if his substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the fine of Rs.2000/- imposed upon the petitioner can be enhanced to Rs.12,000/-. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1-A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the fine of Rs.2000/- is enhanced to Rs.12,000/-, to be deposited within three months from today. In case the enhanced amount of fine is not deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated period of time, he shall be required to undergo the remaining substantive sentence of imprisonment. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S.MANN ) March 03, 2010 JUDGE satish