Criminal Revision No.1152 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.1152 of 1998 Date of Decision:22.07.2009 Manohar Lal .....Petitioner Vs. The State (U.T.), Chandigarh .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 24.10.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by Manohar Lal accused against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 21.3.1995 rendered by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh whereby he convicted and sentenced the aforesaid accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as `the Act') or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. As set up by the prosecution on 21.5.1992 at about 11:15 A.M., Mr. M.K. Sharma, Food Inspector found the accused in possession of 10 crates of sweetened carbonated water (lemon) for sale contained in 200 mls. bottle. By disclosing his identity, he purchased 1800 mls of such water for Criminal Revision No.1152 of 1998 -2- analysis against payment of Rs.13.50. The usual formalities were observed. On receipt of Public Analyst's report, the complaint was lodged against the accused in the Court. On the basis of pre-charge evidence, the accused was charged under Section 7(i) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) 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 against him, and pleaded false implication by taking the plea that he was not running any business of carbonated water in those days and he has stopped such business earlier. Only one crate of carbonated water was specially prepared for his friend, who was a sugar patient and required the same with less sugar and more saccharine. In defence, he examined DW1 Madan Lal. After hearing the learned Government Food Inspector, 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 therewith, he went up in appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. 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 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 scrutinisng the prosecution evidence with due care and caution, it Criminal Revision No.1152 of 1998 -3- 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 has submitted that this incidence being more than 17 years old, the sentence may be reduced to the already undergone. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission. Here in this case, the petitioner has undergone 28 days of the actual sentence. The petitioner has been facing the agony of trial since 1992. In re: Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2008(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 338, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 16(1) of the Act. He faced trial for 20 years. He was released on probation. In re: Tejbir v. State of Haryana, 2008(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 817, also the accused was convicted and sentenced under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, he was released on probation. In re: Surjit Singh v. State (Chandigarh U.T.), 2005(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 583, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The incidence being 20 years old, the sentence was reduced to already undergone. 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, sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the already undergone (28 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 three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. In the event of default Criminal Revision No.1152 of 1998 -4- in depositing the same, this revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed. In that eventuality, the learned trial Court itself being the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps to send the petitioner to the prison. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. July 22, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No