Crl. Revision No. 682 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 682 of 2003 Date of Decision: 08.02.2011 Mangat Ram ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Dharmender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chandumajra, DAG, Punjab. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J.(Oral) This is a petition against the concurrent conviction of the petitioner under Section 16(1A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 4000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Learned counsel has taken me through the judgments of the Courts below but I have not found any error or infirmity therein. He, however, states that the petitioner is now 83 years of age and has suffered the agony of this prolonged trial for more than 12 years. He has been sentenced to total imprisonment for two years. Leaned DAG states that though the age of the petitioner does merit some consideration, yet the Crl. Revision No. 682 of 2003 2 petitioner has undergone only 8 days of imprisonment. In my considered opinion, the interest of justice would be met if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to that which is already undergone by him but the fine is increased from ` 4000/- to ` 40,000/-. In case the fine is not deposited within two months, this petition would be deemed to have been dismissed and the petitioner would be liable for arrest to serve out the remaining period of sentence. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 08, 2011 sunita