CIVIL APPEAL 330 of 2003 on 3 December 1999

Facts

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No.330 of 2003Date of decision: 07.08.2013.

Raj Mal

..Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

..Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

Present:Ms. Mannu Chaudhary,Advocatefor the petitioner.

Mr. Rajat Mor, AAG, Haryanafor the respondent – State.

Daya Chaudhary, J.

The present revision petition has been filed againstjudgment of conviction dated 03.12.1999 passed by Chief JudicialMagistrate, Gurgaon vide which the petitioner was held guilty foroffence under Section 7 which is punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as well as judgmentof Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide which, the judgment ofconviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court has beenupheld.

Briefly the facts of the case are that on 10.10.1991, Food Inspector-Shri Daya Shankar was present near Shankar Market, OldRailway Road, Gurgaon and he intercepted the petitioner-accused, who was having two drums of milk containing 30 litres of mixed milkin his possession for public sale. A sample was demanded by givinga notice in writing and purchased 750 ml milk on payment. Thesample was divided into three equal parts and bottled in three dryand clean empty bottles. The preservative was added and bottleswere sealed. One sealed bottle was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana,Karnal for analysis on 10.10.1991 and the remaining two bottles weredeposited with LHA. On receipt of report, the sample was found to behaving milk fat 4% and milk solids not fat 6.5%, which was founddeficient of the minimum prescribed standards of 4.5% and similarly,milk solids were also found deficient of minimum prescribedstandards of 8.5%.

A complaint was filed, which was tried as a warrant case.On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court convicted the petitionerand sentenced for the said offence to undergo RI for six months andto pay a fine of `1,000/- vide judgment dated 03/04.12.1999.

Thereafter, the judgment of trial Court was challenged bythe petitioner before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,Gurgaon, which was dismissed and judgment of trial Court wasupheld on 07.02.2003.

After losing before two Courts, the present revisionpetition has been filed to challenge the judgment of convictionpassed by both the Courts below.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has faced the agony of trial since institution of complainti.e., 11.12.1991 and he is the only bread winner of his family. He hasa large family to support. There is none else to look after his family.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for taking lenient viewkeeping in view the undergone period of 1 month and 14 daysagainst total sentence of 6 months. Learned counsel for thepetitioner has also relied upon the judgments of this Court inRisalavs. State of Haryana, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 239, Ved ParkashBathla vs. State of Haryana and another, 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal)1, Satish Kumar vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2009(3) RCR(Criminal) 325as well as judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court inNand Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr., 2010 (2) RCR(Criminal) 581.

Learned State counsel has not disputed the custodyperiod and other submissions made by learned counsel for thepetitioner.

After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the partiesand on the basis of totality of circumstances and also the prayermade by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is facingagony of trial since 1991 and he is only bread winner of the family;and also the fact that he is having no criminal background, therequest is accepted to the extent that conviction of the petitionerunder Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act isupheld and sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by

him. With this modification of sentence, the present revision petitionis disposed of as under the similar circumstances, in some of thejudgments cited above i.e., Risala's case (supra), Ved ParkashBathla's case (supra), Satish Kumar's case (supra) and NandLal's case (supra), the sentence of the accused has been reducedto the period already undergone.

07.08.2013(DAYA CHAUDHARY)neetu JUDGE