CIVIL APPEAL 251 of 1997 on 1 March 1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No.251 of 1997Date of Decision : May 27, 2010

Madan Lal

Versus

....Petitioner

State (Chandigarh Administration)

.....Respondent

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

Present :Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate asAmicus Curiae for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for Union Territory, Chandigarh.

T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

The petitioner was tried for the offence punishable underSection 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of FoodAdulteration Act on the allegations that on 13.6.1990, he was found inpossession of about 500 bottles of sweetened carbonated water (orange)for sale in village Darua and the sample drawn therefrom was found tocontain brominated vegetable oil, use of which was not permitted. Videjudgment and order dated 13.9.1994, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Chandigarh convicted the petitioner for the aforementioned offence andsentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and topay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergofurther rigorous imprisonment for one month. The amount of fine waspaid.

Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional SessionsJudge, Chandigarh on 1.3.1997 by maintaining his conviction andsentence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged theconviction of the petitioner. However, he has submitted that the samplewas drawn from the petitioner on 13.6.1990. After receipt of the reportfrom the Chemical Examiner, the criminal proceedings were initiatedagainst the petitioner in the month of October, 1990 when a criminalcomplaint was filed by the Food Inspector. Ever since then, the petitionerhas been facing the agony of criminal prosecution. The present revisionhas remained pending in this Court for the last more than 13 years.Consequent upon the dismissal of his appeal by the lower appellateCourt, the petitioner was taken into custody on 1.3.1997 and it was onlyon 18.3.1997 that he was granted the concession of bail during thependency of his revision. Therefore, the substantive sentence of thepetitioner be reduced to that already undergone by him.

Learned counsel representing the Union Territory ofChandigarh has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner bysubmitting that as the sweetened carbonated water (orange) sold by thepetitioner was found adulterated, therefore, the petitioner has rightly beensentenced to minimum imprisonment and fine and the same cannot bereduced.

InParshadiV State of Haryana2004(2) R.C.R. (Criminal)360, the sentence of a similarly situated accused, who stood convictedunder Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was reduced to Criminal Revision No.251 of 1997

that already undergone by him as he had been facing the trial for a periodof fourteen years. However, his fine was enhanced. While doing so, theCourt relied upon a number of judgments, viz,MahavirV.State throughGovt. Food Inspector,2000(4) RCR(Crl.) 208,Behari LalV. State of(U.T.) Chandigarh,2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 222, Des Raj V. The State ofHaryana,1996(1) RCR 689,Vijay KumarV.The State of Haryana1996(2) RCR(Crl.) 554 (P&H), Mohinder Singh V. State (ChandigarhAdministration),1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 168 (P&H) andSatpal V. State ofHaryana,1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 15 (P&H).

In Narinder Kumar V. State of Haryana2008(2) All IndiaCriminal Law Reporter 288, this Court, once again, reduced the sentenceof a similarly situated convict to that already undergone by him as theoccurrence pertained to the year 1984.

Conclusion

It is a fact that the sword of criminal prosecution hasremained hanging on the head of the petitioner for the last more than 20years. The present revision has remained pending in this Court for morethan 13 years. Out of the sentence of six months imposed upon him, thepetitioner has already undergone a period of three weeks. When thepetitioner was heard by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence, hehad pleaded that he was a young person of 27 years of age and had along way to go. There is no material on the file that the petitioner is aprevious convict or that he is involved in any other crime. Keeping in viewthe observations made by different High Courts in the aforementionedjudgments, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served bysending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, so as to undergo remainder of his sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if thesubstantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to that alreadyundergone by him and at the same time enhancing the fine of Rs.1,000/-to Rs.10,000/-.

Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offenceunder Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of FoodAdulteration Act is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonmentis reduced to that already undergone by him. The fine of Rs.1,000/- isenhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The enhanced amount of fine be deposited bythe petitioner with the trial Court within three months from today, failingwhich he shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for threemonths.

The revision is, accordingly, disposed of.

May 27, 2010satish

( T.P.S.MANN )

JUDGE