-1- Criminal Revision No.335 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.335 of 2003. Date of Decision: February 26, 2010. Ramesh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Ramesh was convicted by the trial Court under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration -2- Criminal Revision No.335 of 2003. Act, 1954 (for short `the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition by the petitioner under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Sample of cow's milk taken by the Government Food Inspector from accused-respondent Ramesh, who was found in possession of 25 litres of milk, was found adulterated by the Public Analyst. Report of the Public Analyst showed that the milk fat in the sample was 0.2% and milk solids not fat was 9.2% and, thus, there was deficiency with regard to milk fat in the sample by 95% of the minimum prescribed standards. The prosecution case was supported by the evidence of Harbhajan Singh, Government Food Inspector (P.W.1), Dr. V.K.Malhotra (P.W.2) and Muni Ram, Steno to Local Health Authority (P.W.3). The sample was taken by the Government Food Inspector Harbhajan Singh (P.W.1) in the presence of Dr.V.K. Malhotra (P.W.2) and one Shiv Kumar, a public witness. Muni Ram, Steno to the Local Health Authority (P.W.3) proved that there was compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act. The evidence produced by the prosecution proved on record that the sample of cow's milk, meant for public sale, was seized from the accused, which was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis, who -3- Criminal Revision No.335 of 2003. vide report (Exhibit P.D) found the same adulterated, as mentioned above. The petitioner-accused, thus, incurred the liability of offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. In this case, Shiv Kumar, a public witness in whose presence the sample was taken from the petitioner, was examined by the accused in his defence as D.W.1. Shiv Kumar (D.W.1) stated that at the time when the sample was taken from the accused, he (accused) had specifically stated before the Government Food Inspector that the milk was separated milk, but the Government Food Inspector did not take note of it. It has come in evidence that the petitioner had kept the milk in two drums and had not indicated on the drums in which he was taking it that the milk was a separated milk. The accused had sold cow's milk to the Food Inspector and, therefore, the standard of skimmed milk or separated milk cannot be applied in this case. Shiv Kumar, a public witness, had not been examined by the prosecution as he appeared to have been won over by the accused. This apprehension of the prosecution proved right when Shiv Kumar appeared in favour of the accused as D.W.1. His evidence has rightly not been accepted by the Courts below. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner could not seriously challenge the prosecution case during the course of argument, which stands proved on record. Conviction of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act is, accordingly, maintained. Out of the rigorous imprisonment for six months, the petitioner has already undergone 2 -4- Criminal Revision No.335 of 2003. months and 27 days of actual sentence. The case relates to May, 1990 and as such the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of the accused more more than nineteen and a half years. Keeping in view this fact, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, beside the fine of Rs.1000/- imposed on him by the Courts below, the petitioner is imposed further fine of Rs.5,000/-. The entire fine amount should be deposited by the petitioner before the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say, if the petitioner fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine in the trial Court within the period stipulated above, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment as awarded by both the Courts below shall remain unaltered. With the above conditional modification in the sentence order, this appeal is dismissed. February 26, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE