Crl. Rev. No.663 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.663 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.05.2010 Baljeet ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. G.S. Sawhney, Advocate with Mr. Narender Sura, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjiv Sura, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The petitioner is convicted vide Order dated 22.09.2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (here-in-after referred to as the `Act 1954') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Thereafter, the appeal against the said Order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Hisar vide Order dated 20.01.2010. Accordingly, the present revision is filed challenging the Order of conviction. Crl. Rev. No.663 of 2010 2 Brief facts of the case are that on 17.11.1995 at about 4.00 p.m., Food Inspector Sh. Chand Ram alongwith Dr. O.P. Charaya M.O., General Hospital, Hansi inspected the premises of the appellant/accused at old bus stand, Hansi and found that he was having in his possession about 10 kgs. of Atta (wheat flour) for public sale contained in a tin and demanded a sample of Atta (wheat flour) for public sale contained in a tin and demanded a sample of Atta (wheat flour) by giving him notice in writing on Form VI prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1956. Notice was issued qua sentence only. Thus, the only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the sentence should be reduced as to that of already having undergone and relied on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Behari Lal vs. State of (U.T) Chandigarh reported in 2000(1) RCR(Criminal) 222. However, the said prayer cannot be granted in view of the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act, 1954. The relevant provision of Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Act, 1954 reads as under :- “16. Penalties.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub- section (1A) if any person- (a) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports into India or manufactures for sales or stores, sells or distributes any article of food- (i) which is adulterated within the meaning of sub- clause (m) of clause (ia) of Section 2 or misbranded within the meaning of clause (ix) of that section or the sale of which is prohibited under any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder or by an order of the Food (Health) Authority;” Crl. Rev. No.663 of 2010 3 (ii) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) xxx xxx xxx (e) xxx xxx xxx (f) xxx xxx xxx (g) xxx xxx xxx “ he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of Section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees: Provided that- (i) if the offence is under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) and is with respect to an article of food, being primary food, which is adulterated due to human agency or is with respect to an article of food which is misbranded within the meaning of sub-clause (k) of clause (ix) of Section 2; or (ii)if the offence is under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), but not being an offence with respect to the contravention of any rule made under clause (a) or clause (g) of sub-section (1A) of section 23 or under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 24, the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years, and with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees:” It is, therefore, apparent that the minimum sentence as prescribed is six months. It can be reduced to three months in special circumstances and for adequate reasons. There is no special circumstances or adequate reasons for which the sentence should be reduced to three months. The trial Court, in any case, took a lenient view Crl. Rev. No.663 of 2010 4 by granting six months, which is the minimum required period after duly recording a finding that the wheat flour was to be used for chapatis for his customers in the hotel and also observed as under :- “ The menace of adulteration in food stuffs has assumed dangerous proportions now-a-days and the people like the accused are playing a havoc with the health of the public and as such, the accused does not deserve to be released on the probation of good conduct.” No special reason or ground has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner except that the petitioner has been undergoing trial since the year 1996. Be that as it may, the adulteration of food is serious anti-social offence which must be dealt with exemplary punishment. Six months is the minimum of the sentence awarded. As per the proviso to Section 16 of the Act, 1954, the sentence can be reduced to minimum of three months only in case of special circumstances. No such circumstances are forthcoming in the present case. Thus, even if it is taken that the petitioner is facing litigation since the last so many years, even then, six months is not on the higher side and is in fact the minimum of the sentence provided. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 13.05.2010 JUDGE gurpreet