Crl. Revn. No. 1557 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 1557 of 2001 Date of Decision : February 05, 2009 Angrej Lal .... Petitioner Vs. State through Government, Food Inspector Guhla, District Kaithal .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ritu Punj, DAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Angrej Lal-petitioner stands convicted under Section 16(1)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short – the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo imprisonment for three months vide judgment dated 12.12.1997 and order dated 13.12.1997 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, as affirmed in appeal by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide judgment dated 04.10.2001. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed. According to the prosecution version, on 24.12.1987, the petitioner was intercepted by Government Food Inspector Yash Pal Kalra Crl. Revn. No. 1557 of 2001 2 along with Dr. R. C. Goel, Medical Officer and a witness Jagdish, while the petitioner was carrying 13 kilograms of cow's milk in two drums on a bicycle for public sale. The Food Inspector purchased 750 mls. milk as sample for analysis in accordance with law. The sample, on analysis, was found to be adulterated because milk solids not fat were found to be deficient by 58%. Consequently, the petitioner was prosecuted ending in his conviction and sentence, as affirmed in appeal, as noticed herein above. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not advance any meaningful argument to assail the conviction of the petitioner. There are consistent statements of Yash Pal Kalra, Food Inspector (PW-1) and Dr. R. C. Goel (PW-3) regarding purchase of sample of cow's milk from the petitioner. Report of Public Analyst reveals that the sample was found adulterated. Veracity of the aforesaid two statements could not be shaken in cross-examination. There is concurrent finding of guilt by both the courts below after analysing the evidence in detail. There is no illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the finding of the guilt recorded by the courts below. The same, therefore, does not warrant any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, conviction of the petitioner is affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently prayed for reduction in sentence. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dhian Chand vs. State of Haryana – reported as 1998 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 336. In that case, the accused faced ordeal of trial for 15 years. The sentence was reduced to three months. I find force in the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case, sample of the cow's milk was purchased from the petitioner more than 21 years ago. He faced trial for one decade and then his appeal remained pending for almost four Crl. Revn. No. 1557 of 2001 3 years and now the instant revision petition is pending for more than seven years. In addition to it, the petitioner was aged 65 years in the year 1997, when his plea regarding charge was recorded and also when his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Now, the petitioner must be aged more than 76 years. On dismissal of his appeal on 04.10.2001, he was taken in custody. This Court granted him bail vide order dated 21.02.2002. The said order was dispatched on 23.02.2002 and it must have taken another few days before the petitioner was actually released. The petitioner has thus already remained in custody for a little less than five months, which is only slightly less than the minimum sentence of imprisonment for six months provided for the offence under the Act. Keeping in view all these circumstances, it would not be desirable to send the old man behind the bars again, when the sample of cow's milk had been purchased from the petitioner more than two decades ago and even the instant revision petition was filed more than seven years ago. In these circumstances, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the courts below is reduced to the period already gone by him in custody, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Ordered accordingly. With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, the revision petition stands disposed of. February 05, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE