In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 178 of 2009 Date of Decision:March 03, 2009 Rajinder Kumar ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.A.K.Walia,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana *** SABINA, J. Rajinder Kumar-petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short – 'the Act')vide judgment dated 28.2.2008 passed by the Sub Division Judicial Magistrate. Vide order dated 4.3.2008 petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide judgment dated . 16.1.2009.Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the appellate court in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:- “As per complainant's allegations against the accused- Crl. Revision No. 178 of 2009 -2- appellant, Jitender Yadav, the then Govt. Food Inspector along with Dr.Sukhraj Singh, Medical Officer, CHC, Dabwali intercepted the accused-appellant in the area of Rajiv Colony Wali Gali, Mandi Dabwali on 22.9.1999 at 9.10 pm and found a drum containing 25 kg. Cow milk in his possession and purchased 750 gms cow milk from him for analysis for a sum of Rs.8/- after giving him a notice in writing, which was divided into three equal parts, bottled in three dry, clean and empty bottles. The bottles were stoppered tightly and sealed on the neck with the seal of the Medical Officer. The bottles were labeled and wrapped in strong thick paper and the ends of the paper were pasted with gum. A paper slip bearing Code No.SR-CS-FI-294 and signatures of Local Health Authority, Sirsa was pasted on each bottle from top to bottom. Each bottle was secured by means of strong twine and sealed with the seals of the Medical Officer and Food Inspector at the spot. The signatures of the accused were obtained in such a manner that both the paper slip and wrapper on each sealed bottle carry a part of his signatures. One sealed bottle along with a memorandum in form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed pack through Railway Parcel, whereas, the other two samples along with two copies of memo were deposited with the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst, Haryana vide its report opined that the sample contains 3.7% of Milk Fat against the minimum Crl. Revision No. 178 of 2009 -3- specified limit of 4.0% as laid down for cow milk in the table below items No. A.11.01.11 of the PFA Rules, 1955. Finding the sample not confirming to the given standard of cow milk, the present complaint was filed against the accused for having committed the offence under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment and has prayed that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Risala vs. State of Haryana (P&H) 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 239. wherein it was held that since the petitioner had suffered protracted trial of 24 years, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence as already undergone. However, the sentence of fine was enhance to Rs. 10,000/- There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was a previous convict. The sample of milk was drawn on 22.9.1999. Since then the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings. In these circumstances, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to as already undergone by him and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months. Non deposit of fine shall Crl. Revision No. 178 of 2009 -4- render this revision petition as dismissed. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE March 03, 2009 PARAMJIT