Criminal Revision No.1812 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1812 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 6.8.2010 Subhash Chander ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Vivek Shakun, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Subhash Chander-petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 vide judgment dated 14.9.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. Vide order of the even date, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide judgment Criminal Revision No.1812 of 2010(O&M) 2 dated 26.5.2010. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “2. Stated briefly, the prosecution story is that on 10.5.2001, GFI S.L.Mahiwal, inspected the shop of accused Subhash Chander son of Santosh Kumar and found him in possession of 2 kg. Boiled milk for sake. On demand of sample, GFI issued notice on Form-VI prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and purchased 750 ml milk for Rs.9/-. The sample was divided into three equal parts and necessary legal formalities were completed. One sealed bottle with memorandum in Form VII was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana Chandigarh, who vide report dated 14.6.2001 reported that the sample contained 2.5% of milk fat and 8.8.% of milk solids not fat against the minimum specified limit of 6.0% and 9.0% respectively laid down for milk. On the presentation of this complaint by GFI, notice was issued to the accused, who put appearance and after pre- charge evidence, the charges were framed against the accused on 28.3.2005 for the offence, under Section 7, punishable under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of Criminal Revision No.1812 of 2010(O&M) 3 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. The petitioner has undergone two months of actual sentence and was merely running a canteen and had not kept milk for sale. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was a previous convict. The sample of milik was drawn on 10.5.2001. Since then the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment is reduced to already undergone by him and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner, who is in custody, be released forthwith subject to deposit of the enhanced amount of fine of Rs.10,000/-. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE August 06, 2010 anita