FIRST APPEAL 295 of 1996 on 6 May 1996

Crl. Revision No.295 of 1996.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Revision No.295 of 1996.DECIDED ON : 13.7.2009.

Sardara Ram

Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana.

Respondent.

CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH

Present: Mr.Hari Pal Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. K.S.Godara, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent.

JORA SINGH,J.

Sardara Ram has filed this revision to impugn the judgment dated 6.5.1996 rendered by AdditionalSessions Judge, Narnaul vide which the appeal of thepetitioner against the judgment/order dated 18.4.1994passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Mahendergarhin complaint under Section 16(1) (c ) of the Prevention ofFood Adulteration Act, 1954 (for shot, the Act) wasdismissed.

Complaint under Section 16(1) (c ) of thePrevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was filed byGovernment Food Inspector on the allegation that on30.1.1988 at about 5.30 P.M. he along with Dr.

M.P.Lamburia, and other officials inspected the kiryanashop of Sardara Ram situated at bus stand NangalSirohi. Sardara Ram was found in possession of kiryanaarticles like gur, pulses, sugar, zeera etc. TheGovernment Food Inspector after disclosing his identityhad demanded a sample of 450 grams of Zeera foranalysis against payment. 2 Kgs of Zeera was kept in atin for public sale.

Notice in form VI for taking the sample of Zeera was prepared. Food Inspector tried to serve noticethen accused refused to accept the same and ran awayfrom the shop after giving push to the Food Inspector.The Food Inspector and other officials are tried to catchhold of him but failed to apprehend him.

After completing the necessary formalities, complaint was instituted.

On merits, revisionist was convicted underSection 16(1)( c) of the Act and was sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fineof Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shallfurther undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period ofone month.

Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of thelearned Judicial Magisttrate, Ist Class, Mahendergarh, first appeal was preferred but the appeal was dismissedby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul.

Learned counsel for the revisionist argued thatoccurrence is dated 30.1.1988. At that time, revisionistwas 54 years old. Now he is aged 75 years. Revisionist isthe first offender. Impugned judgment is not challengedon the point of conviction. The learned counsel requestedthat a lenient view be taken on the point of sentence andorder the revisionist to undergo imprisonment alreadyundergone because the revisionist remained in custodyabout one and a half month.

Mr. K.S.Godara, Deputy Advocate General,Haryana, for the respondent argued that there is nodispute that the revisionist is 75 years old. Occurrencewas in the month January, 1988. He raised no objectionif lenient view is taken in the matter of sentence.

Evidence on the file shows that GovernmentFood Inspector along with other officials on 30.1.1988 atabout 5.30 P.M. had raided the Kiryana shop of therevisionist. Revisionist was found in possession of 2 Kgof Zeera kept for public sale. Against payment,Government Food Inspector demanded 450 grams ofZeera. Notice in From VI regarding taking of sample ofZeera was prepared but without signing the same revisionist had fled away from the spot after giving apush to the Food Inspector. In view of the evidence ofthe officials, both the Courts below had rightly opinedthe revisionist committed an offence punishable underSection 16(1) (c ) of the Act.

At the time of commission of crime, revisionistwas 54 years old. Now he is about 75 years. Occurrenceis dated 30.1.1988. Revisionist remained in custody forabout one and a half month. Revisionist is to become ahard criminal if he is sent to jail to undergoimprisonment, as ordered by the trial Court.

Keeping in view the nature of offence andantecedents of the revisionist, I take a lenient view andorder the revisionist to undergo imprisonment alreadyundergone and he is also ordered to pay a fine ofRs.15000/-. Rs. 15,000/- is to be deposited before the trialCourt within two months. In case the revisionist fails topay the fine, the revision shall stand dismissed.

With this modification, on the point ofsentence, revision being without merit is dismissed.

13.7.2009Anoop

( JORA SINGH )JUDGE