CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2547 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 12, 2011 Pawan Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State through Govt. Food Inspector ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Deepak K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurav Mohunta, DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order rejecting his appeal, whereby his conviction and sentence of one year with fine of `1,000/- under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, “the Act”) has been maintained. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.5.2008 at 8 A.M., Government Food Inspector visited the premises of CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2547 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: the petitioner and found in his possession 12 bottles of McDonald Club Soda in a container. He demanded a sample by giving him a notice in writing. He purchased the sample of 500 Ml. X 6 by making payment of `60/- for the purpose of analysis. After taking the sample, he divided the same in three equal parts and put in three empty bottles, which were stoppered, labelled, wrapped with a strong thick paper. The paper slips issued by the Local Health Authority, Fatehabad bearing Code NO.FTD-DH./F1-1 Sr.No.324 were affixed on the bottles from top to bottom with gum, which was secured by means of strong twine and sealed with seal of Food Inspector and the Medical Officer. Signatures of the petitioner were also obtained on both the paper slips. After completing all the formalities and keeping the two remaining samples intact, the Soda was sent for analysis. As per the report, it was found bacteliogically unfit for human consumption as it given 31 coliform count/100 ml. 4 yeast and mould count/ml and 140 total plate count/ml against the specified limits of nil, 2 & 50 respectively as laid down for Carbonated water under item NO.A.01.01 of the PFA Rules, 1955. Twenty Batch number is not mentioned on the label and manufacturing date is also not clearly visible as required under clauses (e) and (f) of Rule 32 of the PFA Rules, 1955. On this basis, the petitioner was prosecuted and lateron, on the basis of evidence led, he was convicted and sentenced CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2547 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }: as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not made any submission on merits. He, however, pleads for leniency. As per the State counsel, the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence for which the petitioner has been convicted is six months RI, which can go upto a period of two years and Court can not award sentence less than six months, which is the minimum prescribed under the Act. In support, the counsel has referred to Siya Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 403. The counsel for the petitioner, however, has referred to the provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and has laid emphasis on the proviso to urge that if the offence is under Section 16 sub-clause (i) of clause (a) and is with respect to an article of food being a primary food, which is adulterated due to human agency or is with respect to an article of food which is misbranded within the meaning of sub-clause (k) of clause (ix) of Section 2, then the Court may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the judgement impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which may not be less then three months but which may extend to two years and with the fine, which shall not be less than Rs.500/-. The petitioner can not take advantage of provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act as pleaded. Soda CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2547 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 4 }: is an article of food but it is not a primary food. So the proviso will not apply in this case. However, the case for reducing the sentence due to pendency of case for a long time may be made out. This Court had earlier considered the provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act so far as it prescribes minimum period of six months sentence and so also the bar contained in the Act in the form of Section 20(AA) of the Act for grant of probation under the Probations of Offenders Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C. Reference was made to the cases of Ganesh Maity Vs. U.T., Chandigarh, 2003(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 418, Krishan Kumar Vs. State (U.T. Chandigarh), 2005 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 975 and Surjit Singh Vs. State (U.T. Chandigarh), 2005 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 583, where it is viewed that though minimum sentence is prescribed under the Act, yet the same can be reduced considering the long pendency of such proceedings. Following such precedents, this Court in Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana ( in Criminal Revision No.378 of 1993) decided on 3.7.2007, has observed as under:- “Would not this reveal violation of his life and liberty guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law, says Article 21 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2547 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 5 }: of the Constitution. This, Article, earlier construed narrowly as guaranteed against execution action unsupported by law has now been given new dimensions by the Courts to say that it would impose limitation upon law making as well. Thus to pass the test of being a valid law/validly legislated law, it has to be a reasonable, just an fair as well as in addition to be being a validly legislated law. Assurance of a fair trial and a speedy conclusion of criminal trial is now recognized as part of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reference here can be made to Hussainara Khatoon and others Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, AIR 1979 SC 1360 and Kadra Pahadiya and others Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1982 SC 1167. Seen in this context, delay in disposal of criminal prosecution, which in the present case is nearly 27 years, would certainly be a valid consideration for passing any order in regard to the sentence in the present case. Such a course was adopted in the case of Ganesh Maity (supra). In the case of Krishan Kumar (supra), the accused was directed to be released on probation, though he was of 19 years of age, considering the fact that he had CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2547 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 6 }: faced trial for 19 years. Similarly, in the case of Surjit Singh (supra), the sentence awarded to the accused under Section 16 of the Act was reduced to a period already undergone on the ground that the accused had faced trial for nearly 20 years.” Considering all these facts, it is apparent that the petitioner has indeed suffered for the last nearly five years and accordingly case is made out for showing some leniency in the sentence awarded. The petitioner deserves some concession having regard to the nature of allegations made in this case. The petitioner has already undergone sentence of 3 months RI. The sentence, therefore, deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. It is so ordered. The fine, however, as imposed shall remain intact. The revision, otherwise is dismissed. December 12, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE