CIVIL APPEAL 962 of 1998 on 11 December 1997

JUDGMENT

HARBANS LAL, J.

This revision is directed against the judgment dated 8.7.1999passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Jind wherebyhe dismissed the appeal filed by Zile Singh accused against thejudgment/order of sentence dated 11.12.1997 rendered by the court of SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Narwana, vide which he convicted andsentenced the aforesaid accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for aperiod of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 16(1)(a)(i)read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (forbrevity ‘the Act’) and in default of payment of the fine, to further undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

The facts in brief of the prosecution are that Govt. FoodInspector Khushi Ram Gambhir accompanied by Dr. R.S.Khatri inspectedthe premises of accused Zile Singh near Laxmi Cinema Narwana on 26.2.1990 at 2.30 P.M. and he was found in possession of about 2 kgs. ofpaneer (Cheese) for public sale contained in an Aluminum tray. Theaforesaid Inspector also joined PW Madan Lal as a witness. After giving anotice Ex.PA, the aforesaid Inspector demanded a sample of paneer.Thereafter, he purchased 750 grams paneer from the accused on payment ofRs.24/- vide receipt Ex.PB. The usual formalities were observed. Thecertificate Ex.PE was issued by Public Analyst Haryana Chandigarh, inwhich it was opined that the sample of paneer was found to be adulterated.Then the aforesaid Inspector lodged a complaint.

After recording pre-charge evidence, the accused was chargedunder Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act, to which he did notplead guilty and claimed trial.

The learned trial Magistrate after recording the prosecutionevidence and statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. andafter hearing the Government Food Inspector for the State, learned defencecounsel and examining the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced theaccused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with hisconviction/sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was alsodismissed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. Beingundaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments rendered by both the courtsbelow, he has preferred this revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besidesperusing the record with due care and circumspection.

Realising that he would not be able to persuade this court totake a view contrary to the findings returned by both the courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not wish to assailthe conviction. On analysing and scrutinizing the evidence on record, it isfound that the judgments recorded by both the courts below cannot befaulted with in any manner. Sequelly, conviction is maintained. At thisjuncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been facing the agony of trial since 1990 and that being so, his sentencemay be reduced to the already undergone.

I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to thissubmission. Needless to say, this incident is more than 19 years old. As perthe custody certificate, taken on record, the petitioner has undergone 2months and 10 days of the actual sentence. In re:Sadhu Singh versus State

Arguments

of Punjab, 2004(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 108,the accusedwas convicted under Section 326 of IPC. The occurrence being 18 years old,the sentence was reduced to the already undergone (one month). Anidentical view has also been taken in re: Nirmal Singh Versus State ofPunjab 2005(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Crl.) 477. The petitioner hasbeen facing the agony of trial since 1990. He has suffered both financial andmental agony on account of protracted trial. In my view, the ends of justicewould be sufficiently met, if while maintaining the conviction, the sentenceimposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the already undergone (2 monthsand 10 days). Accordingly, it is reduced to the already undergone (2 monthsand 10 days).

12thAugust, 2009 (Harbans Lal)

gsv Judge

Whether to be referred to the Reporter ? Yes/No.