IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 603 of 2003 Date of Decision : March 03, 2010 Sahab Singh @ Subhash ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. John Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Takkar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat for committing an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the allegations that sample of cow milk taken from him on 29.7.1993 was found to be deficient in milk fat by 32.5% and in case of solids not fat the deficiency was 47%. Vide judgment and order dated 12.9.2000, the trial Court convicted the petitioner of the aforementioned offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to Crl. Revision No. 603 of 2003 -2- undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 13.3.2003. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner as recorded by the learned trial Court were maintained. He then filed the present revision in which his sentence was suspended vide order dated 1.5.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not contested the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Courts below. However, he has submitted that the petitioner has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1993. When he was heard by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence, he had stated that he had two small children, wife and aged parents to look after and he was also not a previous convict. Apart from the same, the petitioner was taken into custody on 13.3.2003 upon dismissal of his appeal by the lower appellate Court and was granted the concession of bail on 1.5.2003 when his sentence was suspended by this Court. As such, he has already undergone a period of about two months in jail. In view of the same, the substantive sentence of the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone by him. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that the offence had been committed by the petitioner against the society at large and the Crl. Revision No. 603 of 2003 -3- adulterated food articles pose serious danger to the health of the public and, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. In Parshadi V State of Haryana 2004(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 360, the sentence of a similarly situated accused, who stood convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was reduced to that already undergone by him as he had been facing the trial for a period of fourteen years. However, his fine was enhanced. While doing so, the Court relied upon a number of judgments viz Mahavir V. State through Govt. Food Inspector, 2000(4) RCR(Crl.) 208, Behari Lal V. State of (U.T.) Chandigarh, 2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 222, Des Raj V. The State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR 689, Vijay Kumar V. The State of Haryana 1996(2) RCR(Crl.) 554 (P&H), Mohinder Singh V. State (Chandigarh Administration), 1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 168 (P&H) and Satpal V. State of Haryana, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 15 (P&H). In Narinder Kumar V. State of Haryana 2008(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 288, this Court, once again, reduced the sentence of a similarly situated convict to that already undergone by him as the occurrence pertained to the year 1984. The petitioner herein has suffered protracted trial since the year 1993. He has not been shown to be a previous convict. He has a family consisting of his wife, two children and aged parents to look after. Crl. Revision No. 603 of 2003 -4- Out of the sentence of one year imposed upon him, the petitioner has already undergone a period of about two months in jail. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, so as to serve the remaining sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if his substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the fine of Rs.2000/- imposed upon the petitioner can be enhanced to Rs.12,000/-. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the fine of Rs.2000/- is enhanced to Rs.12,000/-, to be deposited within three months from today. In case the enhanced amount of fine is not deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated period of time, he shall be required to undergo the remaining substantive sentence of imprisonment. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 03, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1