Crl.Revn. NO.449 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revn. NO.449 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: March 08, 2010 Gopal Chand ...PETITIONER VS. State of Haryana ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: None for the petitioner. Ms.Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. MOHINDER PAL, J. This revision petition has been filed by petitioner Gopal Chand against the judgment dated 24.02.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal whereby appeal against the judgment of conviction order dated 09.09.1998 and the sentence order dated 10.09.1998 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla convicting the petitioner under Section 16(i)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month, was Crl.Revn. NO.449 of 2003 2 dismissed. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 22.02.1997, Mahavir Singh, Government Food Inspector, Kaithal, who was accompanied by Dr.R.C.Mittal intercepted the business premises of accused Gopal Chand, who was having in his possession 4.5 kilograms of Haldi Powder in an iron tin for public sale. The Government Food Inspector demanded a sample of 450 grams of Haldi Powder for analysis against the payment after disclosing his identity and serving a notice on form VI upon the accused. At this, accused refused to give the sample and also refused to sign notice form VI. Thereafter, Gopal Chand slipped away from the spot. The Food Inspector waited for Gopal Chand for his return for one hour but he did not return, as such, he could not take the sample. Thus, a complaint was filed against the accused. On the basis of pre-charge evidence adduced by the complainant, the accused was charged under Section 16(i)(c) of the Act. He did not plead guilty to the charge-sheet and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined complainant Mahavir Singh as PW-1, Dr.R.C.Mittal as PW-2 and Kitab Singh as PW-3. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner Gopal Chand denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. In defence, Ved Parkash was examined as DW-1 and Brij Lal was examined as DW-2. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear in Court when the matter was taken up for hearing inspite of the fact that his presence was requisitioned by the Reader of this Court by displaying his name in the Crl.Revn. NO.449 of 2003 3 notice board through the Computer installed in the Court. I have heard the learned State counsel and have gone through the record of the case with her assistance. Mahavir Singh, Government Food Inspector (P.W.1) has unfolded the case of the prosecution as narrated above. Dr.R.C.Mittal (P.W.2) and Kitab Singh as (P.W.3) have also corroborated the statement of Mahavir Singh (P.W.1) that accused refused to give the sample and thereafter went away from the shop. The prosecution witnesses had no enmity with the accused to falsely implicate him in this case. The petitioner-accused, thus, incurred the liability of offence punishable under Section 16(i)(c) of the Act. As such, conviction of petitioner Gopal Chand under Section 16(i)(c) of the Act, as recorded by both the Courts below, is maintained. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of petitioner-accused Gopal Chand for the last thirteen years as the case relates to 22.02.1997 and the petitioner has faced incarceration for more than one month, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.5000/-. I order accordingly by modifying the sentence order. The petitioner will deposit the amount of fine in the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say, if the petitioner fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine of Rs.5,000/- in the trial Court within the period stipulated above, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment as awarded Crl.Revn. NO.449 of 2003 4 by both the Courts below shall remain unaltered. With the above conditional modification in the sentence order, this petition is dismissed. March 08, 2010 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE