IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.915 of 2000 Date of decision: April 28, 2010 Dharambir .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana. A.N. Jindal, J This is petitioner's revision against the order dated 27.7.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 29.7.1997 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, convicting and sentencing him 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 the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein referred as 'the Act'). The facts as culled out from the complaint are that on 29.6.1983, at about 7.30 p.m. S.K. Sharma Government Food Inspector, Sonepat along with Dr. Baldev Datta and Vir Bhan was present near Bus Stand Sonepat, where the accused was seen coming with two drums of cow's milk for sale. The Government Food Inspector, Sonepat, after disclosing his identity purchased 660 mls of milk after stirring it homogeneously and putting 18 drops formaline. The milk was put into three dry and clean bottles. Thereafter the bottles were stoppered, fastened, wrapped and sealed on the neck with the seal of the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Sonepat. The bottles were levelled and then wrapped in strong thick papers and were wrapped from top to bottom with a slip of Local Health Authority. The thumb impressions of the accused were also obtained in such a manner that both the paper slip and wrapper of the sample were carrying part of the thumb impression, the sample was sent to the public Criminal Revision No.915 of 2000 -2- *** analyst. He after examining the same found the same to be adulterated as milk fat was found to be 4% and milk solids not fat were found to be 7.6%, therefore, finding the sample to be deficient than the minimum prescribed standard, a report was sent to the accused, thereafter the complaint was filed. After recording preliminary evidence, the accused was summoned and notice of accusation was issued to him to which he denied and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined S.K. Sharma (PW1) and Ashok Kumar (PW2). To the contrary, the accused examined Daulat Ram (DW1) in his defence. The trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised multi fold contentions while urging that there is a violation of Section 13 (2) of the Act; the report along with notice Ex.PG was not properly served upon the petitioner; no public witness was joined; the milk was not properly stirred and statement of the accused has not been properly recorded. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, this court finds no such defect, irregularity much less perversity in the judgment which could invite the interference of this court at this revisional stage. The evidence has been properly appreciated and relied upon Minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses hither and thither hardly effect the substratum of the case. As regards the sending of the report, Ashok Kumar (PW2) has categorically stated that notice Ex.PG was sent to the accused vide postal receipt Ex.PF. There is no evidence on the record that the report was received un-served by the Local Health Authority, Sonepat. In these circumstances, it is well settled that a document sent through postal receipts at the proper address could be presumed to have been received by the accused unless proved otherwise, therefore, the case does not suffer from non compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act. Criminal Revision No.915 of 2000 -3- *** As regards non joining of the public witness, Beer Bhan was joined but later on given up by the prosecution. It is the privilege of the prosecution to examine any witness or witnesses of its choice. S.K. Sharma, Government Food Inspector has duly explained the time, place and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. No defect in his testimony was pointed out so as to disbelieve him. His testimony stands corroborated by the other evidence. As regards the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, it appears that the same has been duly recorded. All the material questions have been put to the accused. Report of the public analyst was also put to him. Since the sample was deficient by milk solids not fat as well as milk fat, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the accused that the cow was not properly fed. As regards the plea with regard to taking of some leniency on the quantum of sentence, mere delay in disposal of the case cannot altogether wash out the sentence, yet, it could be a mitigating circumstance to extend some leniency. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to six months without alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat for compliance. April 28, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge