Criminal Revision No.2145 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2145 of 2004 Date of Decision : 07.03.2011 Babu Ram ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, D.A.G. Haryana, for the respondent – State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By judgment dated October 16th, 2003, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri convicted the petitioner for an offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay fine of ` 1000/- with default stipulation. 2. Aggrieved of the same, petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri. The Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence of the petitioner from one year to six months. 3. By this revision, petitioner has challenged the aforesaid judgments. 4. Per prosecution, on July 20th, 1993, petitioner was intercepted by C.K. Sikri, Government Food Inspector and Dr.J.P. Sethi, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jagadhri while he was carrying 20 liters of cow milk in two drums for public sale. The Food Inspector purchased 750 ml of milk against receipt (Exhibit PB) for analysis. Necessary formalities were completed. One sealed part of sample along with copy of form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana. Vide report (Exhibit PD), Public Analyst found that the sample was Criminal Revision No.2145 of 2004 2 containing milk solids not fat 5.5 % against prescribed standard of 8.5 % and declared the same to be adulterated. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner does not challenge the judgment of conviction and only prays for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, that is, 2 months and 4 days. 6. The grounds pleaded are that, (i) the petitioner is 72 years old; (ii) he is an ex-serviceman; (iii) during Indo-Pak war in 1965, he received injuries in a bomb attack on his right knee because of which he had to leave army service in the year 1969; (iv) he is handicapped and; (v) he is patient of Hypertension and has lost his vision to some extent. 7. The judgments (i) Braham Dass vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1988(2) RCR (Criminal) 184 and (ii) Nand Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand & another 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 581 have been cited in the context. 8. The authorities cited are of direct import as similar grounds were taken into consideration. 9. In view of the above, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioner and in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, is inclined to reduce the sentence. It is further of the opinion that ends of justice shall be met if the petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and orders accordingly. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 07.03.2011 SN