Crl. Revision No.1305 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1305 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.8.2011 Shamsher Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) Petitioner Shamsher Singh had been convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. The petitioner preferred appeal against the judgment of his conviction/sentence dated 12th September, 2008, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide judgment dated 21st May, 2011. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts below, the petitioner has approached this court through the instant Criminal Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence Crl. Revision No.1305 of 2011 2 awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. He states that he is conscious that scope in the revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated or re-evaluated. Learned counsel submits that out of the total awarded sentence of six months, by now the petitioner has undergone 03 months and 09 days. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of petitioner is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 11th June, 2002 at 11.10 A.M., Government Food Inspector inspected the premises of accused (petitioner herein) and found him in possession of 15 Dallas of sport cold drink and demanded sample of same by giving him a notice in writing on Form VI in the presence of the witnesses and taken six bottles of 300 ml each of sport cold drink after paying Rs.54/- for the purpose of analysis. The bottles so purchased were separated in three parts and each part was stoppered, labeled and then wrapped in a strong thick paper. The paper slip issued by the Local Health Authority, Fatehabad bearing Code No.FTD-CS/F1- 1 serial No.46 were affixed on the container from top to bottom with gum which was secured by means of strong twine and sealed with seal of the Food Inspector and the Medical Officer. Signatures of accused were obtained in such a manner that both the paper slips and wrapper of the sealed sample carry a part of the signatures. The relevant documents were also signed by the vendor on the spot. The signatures of the Crl. Revision No.1305 of 2011 3 witnesses were also obtained on the spot. The sealed sample of sport cold drink along with copy of Form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed packet on 12th June, 2006. Another copy of Form VII along with seal impressions of the seals used for sealing were sent separately by postal receipt No.2531 dated 12th June, 2002 to the Public Analyst at Haryana, Chandigarh. The remaining two sealed samples along with two copies of sample were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Fatehabad on the same day. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the month and year of manufacturing and the period upto which the product was best before consumption, were not mentioned/printed on the label of the sample as required under clause (f) and (i) respectively of rule 32 of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and thus, the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. After considering the documents on record, the accused/ petitioner was summoned by the trial court and on his appearance, a notice of accusation under Section 7 (16) of the Act was served upon him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the complainant examined as many as three witnesses and closed the evidence. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence available on record was put to him. He refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded Crl. Revision No.1305 of 2011 4 false implication. He, however, did not produce any evidence in his defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced him as already indicated above. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad vide judgment dated 21st May, 2011. On a perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him. The appellate court also did not interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings given by both the courts below. The conviction of the petitioner is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He has, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the grounds that the petitioner is a poor person and main bread winner of his family. He has stated that he is conscious that the scope in revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated and re-evaluated. Learned counsel has relied upon judgment of the apex court rendered in Lingappa Shetty vs. Hubli Darvar Municipal Corporation, The Punjab Law Reporter (Vol. LXXXII-1980). Learned State counsel has relied upon the affidavit of Crl. Revision No.1305 of 2011 5 Jaidev Bishnoi, Superintendent, Central Jail, Hisar, which is already on record, according to which the petitioner has undergone custody of 02 months and 01 day as on 21st July, 2011. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the judgment in Lingappa Shetty's case (supra), it is directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner shall be reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine imposed by the trial court is, however, enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.5000/-. The fine be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the petitioner shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as awarded by the trial court. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 29, 2011 'rajpal'