Crl. Revision No.499 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.499 of 2002 Date of Decision: October 27, 2009 Sat Pal .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate with Ms.Poonam Sambhar, Advocate as amicus curiae for the petitioner. Mr.Naveen Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. --- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 1.3.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal whereby judgment, dated 11.3.1998, passed by the trial Court was upheld and the sentence of the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and in default of Crl. Revision No.499 of 2002 -2- payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, was affirmed. 2. The present revision petition was admitted on 7.3.2002 and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on 2.4.2002. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only and has prayed that sentence already awarded by the trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. In this regard, learned counsel made a prayer that the petitioner has already suffered a protracted trial for about 17 years, therefore, a lenient view be taken. The sample in the instant case was taken on 9.6.1992. 4. Learned counsel for the State does not raise any objection to the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The petitioner has suffered a protracted trial for about 17 years. As per record, the petitioner has already undergone about one month. 7. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner should be sent to jail at this stage. Though the minimus sentence of six months is prescribed under the Act. 8. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, the protracted trial of about 17 years and petitioner's valuable right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and, in addition thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced to an amount of Rs.10,000/- . Crl. Revision No.499 of 2002 -3- 9. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence under Sections 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is upheld. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- to be paid within three months from today. 10. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 1.3.2002 and that of the trial Court dated 11.3.1998 are modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) October 27, 2009 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No