Criminal Revision No.332 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.332 of 1998 Date of Decision:11.08.2009 Dilbag Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State through Govt. Food Inspector, Fatehabad Tehsil and District Fatehabad .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 7.2.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by Dilbag Singh- accused against the judgment dated 24.2.1996/ order of sentence dated 2.3.1996 whereby he convicted and sentenced the aforesaid accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity, `the Act') and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The facts in brief are that on 26.4.1990 at about 10:00 A.M., in the area of Fatehabad, the accused Dilbag Singh was intercepted with 20 kgs. of cow's milk for public sale in his possession. Teja Singh, Food Inspector purchased 750 mls of cow's milk on payment of Rs.3/- after Criminal Revision No.332 of 1998 -2- mixing the contents thoroughly. The usual formalities were observed. The Public Analyst gave his report that the milk solids not fat were found 23.5% deficient of the minimum prescribed standards. The complaint was lodged against the accused. After considering the pre-charge evidence, the accused was charged under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. On close of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence. He came up with the plea that he does not deal in milk. The Food Inspector did not take any sample. In defence, he examined Kartar Singh DW1 and Chetan Dass DW2. After hearing the learned Government Food Inspector, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with his conviction/ sentence, he has preferred this revision. This case was adjourned from time to time for arguments, but none had been putting in appearance on behalf of the petitioner despite the fact that this matter for hearing was also displayed on the net. However, I have heard the learned State Counsel besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. As is well settled, the scope of interference in the judgments recorded by the Courts below is very much limited while exercising revisional jurisdiction. On scrutinising and analysing the evidence with due care and caution, it transpires that no holes can be picked in the findings Criminal Revision No.332 of 1998 -3- recorded by both the Courts below. Consequently, the conviction is maintained. The petitioner has been facing the agony of the trial since 1990. Needless to say, this incidence is more than 18 years old. In re: Radhey Shyam Aggarwal v. State N.C.T. Delhi, 2009(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 973 (S.C.). Procedure of warrant case was followed by the learned trial Court instead of summary procedure. At no stage, there was any challenge by the accused to the procedure adopted. The sentence inflicted under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was reduced to the already undergone. Herein also, such procedure seems to have been adopted. As per the custody certificate taken on record, the petitioner has undergone 2 months and 13 days of the actual sentence. In peculiar circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the already undergone (2 months and 13 days). With this modification in the order of sentence, this petition stands dismissed. August 11, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No