CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2516 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 07, 2011 Ilyas .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Food Inspector accompanied by Medical Officer intercepted the petitioner on 15.2.2004 at 11 A.M. while he was carrying five drums containing 125 liters of milk for public sale on a motorcycle. Food Inspector purchased 1500 ml. of mixed milk after serving a notice to the petitioner. He paid sum of Rs.18/- as a price and after stirring the contents properly, making it uniform, divided the same into three equal parts. The Inspector then put the milk in three dry and CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2516 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: clean bottles. Formaline was added to the milk to preserve the same. The bottles were sealed tightly with the seal of Medical Officer. Besides, other formalities were also completed and thumb impression of the petitioner was also obtained on two paper slips wrapped on each sealed bottled packet carrying a part of his thumb impression. The milk was accordingly sent for examination by Public Analyst. The other two sealed bottles were deposited with Local Health Authority in a sealed packet. The certificate of the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh showed that the sample contained 2.20% of milk fat and 7.76% of milk solids against the minimum specified limit of 4.5% and 8.5% respectively. The sample was, thus, found adulterated and so the complaint was filed, leading to conviction of the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, “the Act”). The petitioner was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo imprisonment for 15 days. The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence by filing an appeal, which stands dismissed on 16.9.2011 and the petitioner accordingly has filed the present revision petition. This Court had issued notice only qua quantum of CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2516 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: sentence on 17.10.2011. When the case came up for hearing on 15.11.2011, the counsel appearing for the parties prayed for time to ascertain as to what is the minimum sentence prescribed for an offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. As per the State counsel, the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence for which the petitioner has been convicted is six months RI and Court can not award sentence less than six months, which is the minimum prescribed under the Act. In support, the counsel has referred to Siya Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 403. The Court in this case has observed as under:- “I am of the view that as the minimum sentence of six months has been prescribed by the statute itself, it is not possible for this Court to pass an order contrary thereto, though the Hon'ble Supreme Court can, however, in exercise of its inherent power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, pass any order.” The counsel for the petitioner, however, has referred to the provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and has laid emphasis on the proviso to urge that if the offence is under Section 16 sub- clause (i) of clause (a) and is with respect to an article of food being a 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, then the Court may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the judgement CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2516 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which may not be less then three months but which may extend to two years and with the fine, which shall not be less than Rs.500/-. The relevant provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act 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 sale, 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; (ii) xx xx xx xx xx (b) to (g) xx xx xx xx 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 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2516 OF 2011 :{ 5 }: 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; Provided further that if the offence is under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) and is 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 may extend to three months and with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.” The counsel for the petitioner, thus, appears to be justified in submitting that in cases where the offence is with respect to an article of food, which the milk is and it is a primary food, which again the milk would be, and if it is adulterated due to human agency, then the minimum sentence, for special reason to be recorded, can be for a period of three months. The milk being an article of food, CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2516 OF 2011 :{ 6 }: which is primary food, would be covered under the proviso in the Section and the sentence for special reasons, thus, may be imposed upto three months. The submission by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was very negligible difference between the standards required to pass the test of milk being free from being adulterated. Against the required fat contents of 4.5%, the sample was found containing 2.20% milk fat whereas against the requirement of 8.5% milk solids, the milk recovered from the petitioner contained 7.76% milk solids. Counsel further contends that the petitioner has faced the agony of this trial for last seven years. The counsel accordingly pleads that the Court may consider reducing the sentence to the period of three months, which would be the minimum and in the facts and circumstances of this case, minimum sentence of six months can not be considered as a bar. This Court had earlier considered the provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act so far as it prescribes minimum period of six months sentence and so also the bar contained in the Act in the form of Section 20(AA) of the Act for grant of probation under the Probations of Offenders Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C. Reference was made to the cases of Ganesh Maity Vs. U.T., Chandigarh, 2003(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 418, Krishan Kumar Vs. State (U.T. Chandigarh), 2005 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 975 and Surjit Singh Vs. State (U.T. Chandigarh ), 2005 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 583, where it is viewed that though minimum sentence is prescribed under the Act, yet the same can be reduced considering the long pendency of such proceedings. Following such precedents, this Court in Ram Kumar CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2516 OF 2011 :{ 7 }: Vs. State of Haryana ( in Criminal Revision No.378 of 1993) decided on 3.7.2007, has observed as under:- “Would not this reveal violation of his life and liberty guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law, says Article 21 of the Constitution. This, Article, earlier construed narrowly as guaranteed against execution action unsupported by law has now been given new dimensions by the Courts to say that it would impose limitation upon law making as well. Thus to pass the test of being a valid law/validly legislated law, it has to be a reasonable, just an fair as well as in addition to be being a validly legislated law. Assurance of a fair trial and a speedy conclusion of criminal trial is now recognized as part of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reference here can be made to Hussainara Khatoon and others Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, AIR 1979 SC 1360 and Kadra Pahadiya and others Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1982 SC 1167. Seen in this context, delay in disposal of criminal prosecution, which in the present case is nearly 27 years, would certainly be a valid consideration for passing any order in regard to the sentence in the present case. Such a course was adopted in the case of Ganesh Maity (supra). In the case of Krishan Kumar (supra), the accused was directed to be released on probation, CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2516 OF 2011 :{ 8 }: though he was of 19 years of age, considering the fact that he had faced trial for 19 years. Similarly, in the case of Surjit Singh (supra), the sentence awarded to the accused under Section 16 of the Act was reduced to a period already undergone on the ground that the accused had faced trial for nearly 20 years.” In the present case, the petitioner can not said to have suffered the agony of very prolonged period of trial etc. compared to the case of Ram Kumar (supra). However, the petitioner has indeed suffered for the last nearly seven years. Atleast, the petitioner deserves the concession as is available to him under the proviso on this count and having regard to the gravity of the offence in this case. The sentence, therefore, deserves to be reduced to three months RI. It is so ordered. The fine, however, as imposed shall remain intact. The revision, otherwise is dismissed. December 07, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE