IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 387 of 2007 Date of Decision: February 03, 2009 Sham Lal ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Dr.Surya Parkash,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharath Sarup,AAG Haryana. ** Sabina, J. Sham Lal- petitioner was convicted under section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short `the Act') by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal vide judgment dated 20.10.2004 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.5000/- vide order dated 27.10.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide judgment dated 15.2.2007. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 1 of the judgment, is reproduced herein below:- "Brief facts of the case are that on 21.5.1994 at about 11.45 a.m. Sh. Sham Lal, Govt. Food Inspector (hereinafter to be referred as G.F.I.) accompanied by Dr. Ghanshyam, inspected the hotel of the present accused situated at Kaath Mandi, Kaithal and found him in possession of 6 kgs of Curd kept in aluminum pan for public Crl. Revision No. 387 of 2007 -2- sale. The GFI disclosed his identity and demanded a sample of curd by giving notice Ex.PA. The GFI purchased 600 grams of curd from the accused against payment of Rs.6/- vide receipt Ex.PB. Thereafter, the curd was properly mixed and churned for the purpose of analysis and then it was divided into three equal parts and put in three dry and clean bottles. Then all the three bottles were labelled, wrapped and sealed as per provision of Food Adulteration Rules. One of the samples, was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Kaithal for analysis, while two other samples were deposited with the Local Health Authority. The GFI also prepared the spot memo Ex.PC. As per report of the Public Analyst, Haryana, Karnal Ex.PD, the sample does not conform to the standards laid down for `Dahi' under item No. A.11.02.04 of the PFA Rules, 1955 thereof in that:-(1) Milk fat falls below minimum specified limit of 6.0% (2) Milk solids not fat fall below minimum specified limit of 9.0%. Accordingly, complaint Ex.PE was filed by the GFI before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal for commission of offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the PFA Act)." Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment and has prayed that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Crl. Revision No. 387 of 2007 -3- In the case of Risala v. State of Haryana, (P&H) 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 239, it was held by this Court that since the petitioner had suffered protracted trial of 24 years, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence as already undergone. However, the sentence of fine was enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The sample of curd was taken on 21.5.1994. Since then the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was a previous convict. In these circumstances, it would be just and expedient if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Vide order dated 15.1.2008 passed by this Court, fine was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. The said amount has already been deposited by the petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to as already undergone by him and sentence of fine already enhanced to Rs.10,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed of. ( Sabina ) Judge February 03, 2009 arya