Criminal Revision No.406 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.406 of 1994 Date of Decision:20.07.2009 Sumer Dass .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 16.7.1994 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot whereby he dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 28.5.1990 rendered by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot vide which he convicted and sentenced Sumer Dass accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity, `the Act'). The facts in brief are that on 28.12.1985 Dr. C.S. Brar, designated as Food Inspector and authorised to launch prosecution under the Act intercepted Sumer Dass at Jaitu at about 9:00 A.M, while on food Criminal Revision No.406 of 1994 -2- sampling duty along with Dr. S.K. Gupta and other officials. The accused was carrying 60 kgs of cow's milk contained in 2 drums on a motor-cycle meant for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 660 Mls of cow's milk from accused from one drum after making the contents homogeneous by stirring. The usual formalities were observed. According to the report of the Public Analyst, the same was found deficient in milk fat. Alleging that the accused was carrying adulterated milk for sale, the Food Inspector filed the complaint. On consideration of the pre-charge evidence, the accused was charged under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. On close of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence and pleaded that he has sold skimmed milk, which fact he had told to the Food Inspector in the presence of Sultan Singh and Jagdish Lal DW1 and DW2. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved, he went up in appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, he has preferred this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Realising that he won't be able to persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the findings returned by both the Courts below, the learned Criminal Revision No.406 of 1994 -3- counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction recorded by both the Courts below in any manner. On analysing and scrutinising the prosecution evidence with due care and caution, it transpires that no exception can be taken to the findings returned by both the Courts below. Sequelly, the conviction is maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that this incident being 23 years old, the sentence may be reduced to the already undergone. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission. Needless to say, the petitioner has been facing the agony of the trial since 1985. In re: Radhey Shyam Aggarwal v. State N.C.T. Delhi, 2009(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 973 (S.C.), the accused was convicted and sentenced to 15 months rigorous imprisonment under the Food Adulteration Act. The incident being 20 years old, the sentence was reduced to the already undergone (one year). In the instant case, the petitioner while on bail during pendency of this revision did not make misuse of this liberty. In peculiar circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the already undergone (12 days). The fine imposed by the learned trial Court upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. The difference of fine shall be deposited by the petitioner in the trial Court within two motnhs from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. In the event of failure of the petitioner to deposit the enhanced amount within the aforesaid period, his revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed. In that eventuality, the trial Court itself being the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps to send the Criminal Revision No.406 of 1994 -4- petitioner to prison. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. July 20, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No