CRR No.749 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.749 of 2004 Date of Decision : 31.01.2011 Abhey Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Tapan Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the concurrent conviction of the petitioner under Section 7(i)(a) read with Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. As per the prosecution, the petitioner was found having in his possession 40 packets of red chilly power, each weighing 50 gms, for public sale. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that adulteration CRR No.749 of 2004 -2- was only marginal. According to him, as against the maximum of 1.3% ash insoluble in dilute HCL was found to the extent of 1.48% in the sample and as against the minimum of 12.0% non volatile ether extract was found to the extent of 11.20% and there was grit found in the sample to the extent of 1.08% which is a very marginal adulteration. The petitioner was sentenced to one year imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there were only marginal shortcomings in the sample. He further argued that the petitioner has faced the protracted agony of proceedings since 1988 which is around two decades, since at one stage the matter was remanded back. It is further prayed that the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a period of about little less than one month. In Sektu Ram vs. State of Haryana reported in 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 364, this Court after noticing the entire law on the subject, held as follows:- “Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and also the fact that the offence in the present case was committed 12 years back, the petitioner has faced the agony to trial since then; he has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about CRR No.749 of 2004 -3- two months; he is not a previous convict and even thereafter has not been involved in any such case; he has already learnt lesson of his life, accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for reducing the quantum of sentence deserves acceptance.” In my considered opinion, present is a case where even while enhancing the fine of the petitioner his sentence should be reduced to that which he has already undergone. Thus in view of the dictum of the law enumerated in the above said judgments and in view of the fact that petitioner has now undergone imprisonment of a little less than one month, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to that which he has already undergone even while enhancing the fine from Rs.2000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Ordered accordingly. In case the fine is not deposited within a period of 2 months from today the present revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the petitioner liable to be arrested to serve out remaining part of the sentence. Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 31, 2011 JUDGE CRR No.749 of 2004 -4- ashish