Crl. Rev. No. 1697 of 2004 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 1697 of 2004 Date of Decision: Dec. 14,2009 Gajender Kumar ...................................... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .................................. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S.Sindhu, Addl. A.G. Haryana. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.1.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, and the judgment dated 13.8.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide which he was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (hereinafter referred to as `Act') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous Crl. Rev. No. 1697 of 2004 [ 2 ] imprisonment for one month. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was a tea vendor and for preparation of tea, was keeping milk in his tea stall. On 15.5.1993, Khushi Ram Gambhir, the Government Food Inspector, who was authorised to take samples of food stuff from vendors with a view to have them analysed from Public Analyst, went to the tea stall of the petitioner situated near Community Health Centre, Bhattu Mandi, and purchased 750 Mls of cow milk from the accused Gajender Kumar on payment of requisite price. After purchasing the milk, the milk was thoroughly stirred and homogenised and thereafter the Government Food Inspector divided the milk into three equal parts and put them in three dry and clean bottles and also put 20 drops of 40% formalin in each bottle as preservative. Thereafter, the bottles were stoppered, securely fastened, wrapped in strong thick paper and were sealed. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana. A report was received from the Public Analyst by the Local Health Authority, as per which the sample of cow milk did not conform to the standards laid down for cow's milk under the Act. It was reported that the milk fat was detected to be 2.6% while milk solids not fat were detected to be 4.8% and hence both fell below the minimum specified limits of milk fat and milk solids. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, a complaint was filed before the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad. The petitioner stated that he was innocent Crl. Rev. No. 1697 of 2004 [ 3 ] and that the milk was not for sale and was kept for preparing tea. He claimed trial. During the trial, the complainant appeared as PW1. The prosecution also examined Dr. Sant Lal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Karnal, as PW2 and Ram Murti, Clerk in the office of Civil Surgeon SMO, Fatehabad, as PW3. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. The accused produced Sham Lal son of Ganesha Ram, a shopkeeper in Bhattu Mandi, in his defence and, thereafter closed his evidence. The trial Court found that the sample of milk has been opined to be adulterated by the Public Analyst, Haryana, and it also returned a categorical finding that all the formalities, right from taking of the sample of the milk to sending it to the Public Analyst, have been complied with and held the petitioner guilty for selling adulterated milk. Accordingly, the petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide judgment dated 13.8.2004. Mr. Lohan, counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the milk which was lying in the tea stall of the petitioner was not for sale but was meant for preparation of tea. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in State of Crl. Rev. No. 1697 of 2004 [ 4 ] Haryana v. Inder Singh 1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 116 wherein it was held by the Division Bench that if the milk was kept for preparation of tea and was not for sale, then no offence is made out. He further submits that the petitioner has already suffered a long and protracted trial of more than 16 years inasmuch as the sample of milk was taken on 15.5.1993 and, therefore, his sentence be reduced to the one already undergone by him. Counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the milk recovered from the petitioner has been found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst, Haryana, and as the petitioner is playing with the health and lives of people of general public, therefore, he does not deserve any sympathy and there should be no reduction in the sentence. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. A perusal of the aforementioned facts clearly shows that the sample of the milk was found to be adulterated both as far as milk fat and milk solids are concerned and, hence, the conviction of the petitioner by both the Courts below is confirmed and upheld. Coming to the point of sentence, I find that the petitioner has already suffered a long and protracted trial of more than 16 years. In Satish Kumar v. Union Territory 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 325 the sentence awarded to the accused in a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 was reduced to the one already undergone by him as the accused had Crl. Rev. No. 1697 of 2004 [ 5 ] suffered a long and protracted trial. In Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1988(2) RCR (Criminal) 184 (SC) in paragraph 5 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 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the Court should take strict view of such matter.” The observations made above in Braham Dass's case (supra) were followed by this Court in cases titled as Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab 1989 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 183 and Ishwar Singh v. The State of Haryana 1994 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 161 and the sentence awarded to the accused therein under the Act, was reduced to the period already undergone. In view of the above, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of Crl. Rev. No. 1697 of 2004 [ 6 ] the Act, I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him. However, the petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- which shall be deposited by him within a period of three months before the trial Court. In case the petitioner does not deposit the fine as imposed by this Court within the stipulated period mentioned above, the benefit of reduction in sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner and he shall taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence as imposed by the Courts below. Revision is disposed of. 14.12.2009 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE