Criminal Revision No. 1154 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1154 of 2000 DATE OF DECISION: January 18, 2010 Parsi .....PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and another .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr B.R.Rana, Advocate Ms Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. T.P.S .MANN,J. (Oral): The petitioner was tried by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal for the offence under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, on the allegations that the sample of cow milk taken from him was found to contain 2.4% milk fat and 4.5% milk solids not fat against the minimum prescribed as 4% and 8.5% respectively. Vide judgment and order dated 14/15.7.1999, the trial Court convicted the petitioner of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In case of non payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by Additional Criminal Revision No. 1154 of 2000 -2- Sessions Judge (1), Faridabad on 25.9.2000, by reducing the sentence of imprisonment from one year to nine months, besides reducing the period in default of payment of fine from three months to two months. He is now before this Court by way of present revision filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. According to the complaint filed by Balwan Singh, Govt. Food Inspector, Hodal, he alongwith Dr D.P.Gupta, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hodal, inspected the hotel premises of the petitioner on 20.8.1993 at about 6.00 PM and found him in possession of about 20 kgs of cow milk for public sale. The said milk was contained in a Tub. The Food Inspector served a notice upon the petitioner and thereafter, mixed the whole contents properly so as to make them uniform for analysis. He then purchased 750 mls of cow milk against payment of Rs.6/-. The said purchased milk was divided into three equal parts and bottled in three dry, clean and empty bottles. Formalin was added in each bottle so as to preserve the contents thereof. After completing the formalities regarding recovery and sealing of the samples of the milk, the Govt. Food Inspector sent one sealed bottle to the Public Analyst, Haryana for analysis. The other two sealed bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Faridabad. The report received from the Public Analyst showed that sample contained milk fat and milk solids not fat below the minimum prescribed standards and, thus, cow milk kept by the petitioner for sale was found to be adulterated. After appearance of the accused, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal ordered his release on bail. Simultaneously, an order was also passed that the case would be tried in the manner prescribed for a warrant case. In pre-charge evidence, the complainant examined himself as Criminal Revision No. 1154 of 2000 -3- PW-1, Dr D.P.Gupta as PW-2 and Dr.Jagmohan Gandhi as PW-3. After considering the pre-charge evidence, the trial Court vide order dated 5.6.1997 ordered for framing of charge against the petitioner for the aforementioned offence. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Subsequent to the framing of charge, Dr D.P.Gupta PW-2 and Govt. Food Inspector Balwan Singh PW-1 were recalled for further cross-examination. The petitioner, however, did not opt for further cross- examination of Dr Jagmohan Gandhi PW-3. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the petitioner denied all the material allegations of the prosecution put to him and stated that he had been falsely implicated. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the evidence available on the record perused with their able assistance. The recovery of the sample of the cow milk from the petitioner stands established from the statement of the complainant, namely, Balwan Singh PW-1, who was posted as Govt. Food Inspector at Hodal. His testimony finds corroboration from that of Dr. D.P.Gupta, who was examined as PW-2. The procedure as prescribed by law was duly complied with by the Govt. Food Inspector, while taking the sample from the petitioner. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the milk fat and milk solids not fat were found below the minimum prescribed standards and, thus, sample of cow milk taken from the petitioner was found to be adulterated. Therefore, no case is made out for any interference in the conviction of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the Criminal Revision No. 1154 of 2000 -4- sample was taken from the petitioner about 16 years ago i.e. on 20.8.1993. All this while, the petitioner has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution. Speedy trial of the accused is the essence of justice and any inordinate delay in disposal of the case itself would cause sufficient agony to the petitioner. The present revision is pending since October 2000 and more than 9 years have elapsed since then. The prolonged litigation itself is a good ground for treating the petitioner in a lenient manner in the matter of his sentence of imprisonment. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner was found to have kept cow milk for public sale, which milk on analysis was found to contain milk fat and milk solids not fat below the minimum prescribed standards. Mere fact that the petitioner has been facing the agony of the criminal prosecution, is no ground to extend any benefit to him in the matter of sentence. In Harjeet Singh vs State of Haryana , 1993 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 235, this Court while maintaining the conviction of the accused of the offence of adulteration found it to be a fit case for not sending the accused to jail at that stage for undergoing the remaining period of sentence, as he had remained in jail for sometime and for the last more than 9 years, he had faced the protracted litigation and, thus, had undergone sufficient mental harassment. While coming to such a conclusion the Court also relied upon Braham Dass vs The State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 13. The relevant portion of the judgment in Harjeet Singh's case (supra) is reproduced here below: “4. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not address any arguments assailing the conviction of the petitioner Criminal Revision No. 1154 of 2000 -5- before me. His solitary contention was that speedy trial was the essence of justice and inordinate delay in disposal of a case itself caused sufficient agony to the petitioner. So, it was a fit case where he should not be sent to jail at this stage and sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period during which he remained confined. He contended that sample of milk from the petitioner was taken in the year 1983 and more than 9 years have elapsed. The present revision petition is pending since 1986 and this prolonged litigation itself is a ground for treating the petitioner in a lenient manner. In support of this contention the learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Braham Dass v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 13. In this case it was observed as under: “Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant had been acquitted by the Trial Court and the High Court while reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the Appellate Judge has not made clear reference to clause (f). The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing the remaining period of the sentence, though ordinarily in an anti-social offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the court should take strict view of such matter.” 5. I find that in the instant case the sentence awarded to the petitioner was modified in the year 1986 and Criminal Revision No. 1154 of 2000 -6- thereafter he remained in jail for some time. For the last more than 9 years he faced this protracted litigation and had undergone sufficient mental harassment. So keeping in view the circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case where no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail at this stage for undergoing the remaining period of sentence.” Similarly, in Joginder Singh vs State of Haryana, 1993 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 590 and Mahabir Parshad vs State of Haryana , 1993 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 152, this Court again reduced the sentences of imprisonment to that already undergone by the convicts, facing charges of adulteration, keeping in view the fact that they had faced protracted litigation and had undergone sufficient mental harassment. In the present case, the petitioner was taken into custody on 25.9.2000 when his appeal was dismissed Additional Sessions Judge (I), Faridabad. The present revision filed by the petitioner came up for hearing on 5.10.2000 when notice of motion was issued to the Advocate General, Haryana and in the meantime, execution of sentence awarded to the petitioner was stayed on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad. Thus, the petitioner has already remained behind the bars for some time. He had been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1993. No useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars once again so as to serve the remaining sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed upon the petitioner by the Courts below can be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Criminal Revision No. 1154 of 2000 -7- Resultantly, the revision is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction of the petitioner but reducing the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone by him. The fine of Rs.1,000/-, imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner, within three months from the date of preparation of certified copy of the order. In the event of the petitioner not paying the aforementioned fine, he would be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed by the trial Court, if already paid, would be adjusted towards the aforementioned fine of Rs.10,000/-. January 18, 2010 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds JUDGE