CIVIL APPEAL 552 of 2001 on 21 August 1998

CRR No.552 of 2001[ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

...

Criminal Revision No.552 of 2001

Decided on : March 10, 2009

Sarvan Kumar

... Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

Present:Mr.I.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Rajat Goyal, Assistant Advocate GeneralHaryana.

-A.N.JINDAL, J.

This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated15.3.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, dismissing theappeal of petitioner Sarvan Kumar (herein referred as `petitioner') againstthe judgment dated 21.8.1998 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa,convicting him under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the FoodAdulteration Act, 1954 (for short `the Act'). However, in appeal, thesentence of imprisonment awarded by the Trial court was reduced to sixmonths, without any alteration in the sentence of fine.

A brief resume of facts is that on 30.12.1994 Food InspectorPrithi Singh along with Dr.RP Dahiya inspected the premises of thepetitioner at DC Colony, Sirsa and found him in possession of 40 kg of dal`Mungi Dhuli' (a kind of pulses) for public sale contained in a bag. TheFood Inspector after disclosing his identity and giving a notice (Ex.PA) tothe petitioner, purchased 600 grams of the Dal and made it uniform. Then,it was divided into three dry clean and empty bottles which were labelledand sealed as required under the Rules. Food Inspector also prepared aspot memo (Ex.PC) and delivered on copy of Form VII to the petitioner.One sealed bottle along with memorandum of form VII was sent to PublicAnalyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis. On analysis, the PublicAnalyst vide his report dated 30.1.1995 (Ex.PG) opined that the sample wascoloured with added prohibited yellow (metanil Yellow) acid coaltar dye,whereas, it should have been free from the same. Consequently, thecomplaint (Ex.PH) was filed.

The Trial Court tried the complaint as a warrant case, recordedthe pre-charge evidence and then framed the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act, to which the petitioner pleaded not guiltyand claimed trial.

After framing the charge, the Trial court examined Dr.RameshKumar as PW3, in addition to the witnesses already examined, who werealso recalled for re-examination.

In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded his falseimplication. He examined Prem Iqbal (DW1) to prove that the shop in question belonged to Nand and Madan and did not belong to him. Thetrial ended in conviction. The appeal was also dismissed with somemodification in the quantum of sentence, as referred to above.

Arguments heard. Records perused.

At the very outset, counsel for the petitioner has not assailedthe order of conviction, however, he harped for some leniency in thequantum of sentence.

The occurrence took place way back on 30.11.1994 and thepetitioner has already suffered a lot of agony on account of protractedproceedings. He may have been reformed by now. No bad antecedentshave been brought on record to establish that he is a habitual offender. Inany case, after such a long time, it would not be in the fitness of things tosend him back to the prison. He has already undergone about 13 days ofthe substantive sentence.

Arguments

Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, this petition isdismissed and the sentence is modified to the extent that the petitioner isextended the benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation ofOffenders Act, 1958 on his executing bond in the sum of Rs.5000/- withone surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for aperiod of one year within which period he will continue to be of goodbehaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond,he will be ready to serve the sentence as and when called for. Thismodification shall be subject to deposit of Rs.40,000/- by the petitionertowards costs of the litigation, within three months from today, in additionto the fine amount, which is also converted into costs of litigation.

It is made clear that in case of failure to deposit the costs oflitigation within the stipulated period, the petition shall be treated as havingbeen dismissed without any modification.

March 10, 2009 `gian'

( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE