In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 604 of 2003 Date of decision: 24.03.2009 Mahabir ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rajat Goyal, AAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 11.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Mahabir (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 15.9.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana, convicting and sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein referred as 'the Act') The brief resume of facts is that on 18.4.1994 at about 2.00 p.m. Lajpat Rai Punani, Food Inspector, inspected the premises of the petitioner and found five liters of mango squash in sweetened water meant for the public sale. After serving notice on the prescribed form, purchased 750 mls of mango squash for the purposes of analysis. The sample was divided into three equal parts and put in three dry and clean bottles. Two drops of 40% formalin were added to each bottle as preservative. One sealed bottle along with memorandum on Form-VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana Karnal and the remaining two samples were deposited with Local Health Authority, Gohana. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst that the sample was not up to the standard, complaint was presented in the Court. The petitioner moved application dated 14.6.1994 and the sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory, Mysore for re-analysis who also confirmed that the sample was not up to the standard laid down for fruit Crl. Revision No. 604 of 2003 -2- beverages. After recording pre-charge evidence, he was charged under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution led evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed. Arguments heard. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, it has been contended that the petitioner being first offender and having already undergone four months of the substantive sentence, could be extended benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. Having examined the impugned judgment, the same is shorn of any illegality much less irregularity resulting into miscarriage of justice. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the petitioner. As such, no interference could be made at this stage in the judgment of of conviction. As regards quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1994 and the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the pendency of the protracted proceedings. He appears to be first offender as no bad antecedents have been brought on record so as to dub him as habitual offender. He has already undergone four months out of the substantive sentence. As such, it would not be in the fitness of things to send him back to imprison at this stage and ends of justice would be met if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to the extent that as already undergone by him. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.25000/- which shall be paid by him within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat for compliance. March 24, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge