Criminal Revision No. 750 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 750 of 2002 Date of Decision: 26.5.2010 Nathu Ram …Petitioner Versus State (Union Territory, Chandigarh) …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by Nathu Ram son of Bihari Lal, who was prosecuted in a complaint filed by Government Food Inspector under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “1954 Act”). The case set out in the complaint is that Nathu Ram son of Bihari Lal, who was running a factory for the manufacture and sale of Ice Cream/Ice Candies etc. under the name and style of M/s Deluxe Ice Milk in one of the showrooms at Manimajra. The Government Food Inspector visited the business premises of the petitioner on 30.6.1992 at about 1.00 P.M. He found that in the freezer 500 pieces of orange shade ice candy for public sale were stored by the petitioner. Each ice candy was weighing 50 grams. The Government Food Inspector had disclosed his identity and purchased 20 pieces of ice candy, for analysis and a Criminal Revision No. 750 of 2002 2 cash memo of Rs.20/- was prepared. The ice candies, so purchased, were put in a dry and clean plastic jug. After the ice candies melted, the preservative was added, the sample in consonance with the procedure prescribed was secured, fastened, labelled and separately wrapped in a thick paper. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample contained saccharine which is an artificial sweetener and the use of the same is not permitted. It also gave total reducing sugar as sucrose 5.4% against the minimum prescribed standard of 10.0%. Thus, the sample was declared as adulterated. O.P.Gautam, Food Inspector, appeared as PW.1 and Surinder Kumar as PW.2. PW.2 Surinder Kumar proved compliance of Section 13(2) of the 1954 Act. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, vide its judgment dated 5.5.1998, held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the 1954 Act and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner has filed an appeal. The Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 8.4.2002, while upholding the conviction and maintaining the sentence, had dismissed the appeal. Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has stated that since both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimonies of PW.1 O.P.Gautam, Food Inspector and PW.2 Criminal Revision No. 750 of 2002 3 Surinder Kumar, he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of the petitioner. He further submitted that the occurrence, in the present case, pertains to year 1992 and a period of about 18 years is going to elapse. Furthermore, while determining the quantum of sentence, the trial Court, on 5.5.1998, had recorded that the petitioner appears to be a patient of Tuberculosis and is a sole bread earner of the family consisting of young children and old aged parents. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Lajpat Rai v. State of Haryana 2010(1) Recent Criminal Reports 310 wherein this Court has noticed the entire case law, the judicial pronouncements of various Single Benches of this Court, taking into consideration protracted trial as mitigating circumstance, had reduced the sentence to that of already undergone. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and ratio of law noticed in Lajpat Rai's case (supra), sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to that of already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Failure on the part of petitioner to deposit fine shall disentitle him to reduction of sentence. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 26, 2010 “DK”