JUDGMENT
A.S. Nehra, J.
1. Petitioner was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months on 10-8-1984 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 7-1-1985 by the Sessions Judge, Jind.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are as under:–
(a) On 28-9-1981, at about 4.30 P.M , Sher Singh, Government Food Inspector, Jind alongwith Dr. D D. Setia and Inderpal Batra, an independent witness, inspected the shop of the accused situated at Jhanj Gate, Jind. The accused was found in possession of 10 kilograms of Mithi Golian (sweets) contained in a tin meant for public sale. Sher Singh disclosed his identity to the accused and served notice in Form VI Ex. PA thereby expressing his desire to purchase some Mithi Golian tor analysis. Thereafter, the complainant purchased 900 grams of Mithi Golian for a sum of Rs. 5.40 paisa vide receipt Ex PB issued by the accused The complainant divided the said Mithi Golian in three equal parts and put each in a separate dry and clean bottle. All the sample bottles were labelled, stoppered, securely fastened and then wrapped in a strong thick paper, which was secured by means of a paper slip, bearing the code number of the Local (Health) Authority, Jind and twine. All the three sample bottles were then sealed with the seal impression of the complainant-Food Inspector and Dr. D.D. Setia. The signatures of the accused and the doctor were also obtained on each one of the aforesaid bottles. A memorandum of proceedings Ex. PC was prepared which was signed by the accused and attested by Dr. D D. Setia and Inderpal Batra PWs. Four copies of the memorandum of proceedings Ex. PC were prepared and the specimen impressions of the aforesaid seal were also affixed on them. One of the sealed sample bottles alongwith a copy of the memorandum Ex. PC was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh through railway parcel. Another copy of the memorandum of proceedings Ex. PC alongwith the specimen of the seal impression were sent to the Public Analyst separately through registered post The remaining two sealed bottles alongwith the remaining copies of the memorandum Ex PC were deposited with the Local (Health) Authority, Jind. The Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, vide his report Ex PD found, on analysis that the sample of the Mithi Golian contained unpermitted blue VRS coal-tar dye and basic red coal-tar-dye It also contained grit and soap stone and apart from that, ash in dil HCL was 0.28 percent against the maximum prescribed standard of 0 2 per cent. On receipt of the report Ex. PD, the complainant-Food Inspector filed the complaint Ex. PE against the accused. The copy of the report of the Public Analyst alongwith a notice as required under Section 13(2) of the Act was sent by the Local (Hea th) Authority, Jind, to the accused through registered post.
(b) The accused put in appearance in the Court and applied for sending the second portion of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, for analysis. His request was allowed and the second bottle of the sample was sent to the said laboratory. The Director of the said Laboratory vide his report Ex. PG found that the said sample did not conform to the standard of Hard Boiled Sugar confectionery as laid down in clause A. 25 01 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, in that the sample showed the presence of non-permitted coal tar dye colours.
(c) The complainant came in the witness box as PW-1 and gave evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint Ex. PE. The learned trial Magistrate found a prima facie case under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and charged the accused accordingly. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, claimed trial and also wanted to further cross-examine the complainant.
Besides himself coming in the witness box for further cross examination, the complainant examined Shri Mithai Ram, Head Clerk as PW-2 and Dr. D D. Setia PW 3, Inderpal Batra PW was given up by the complainant as having been won over by the accused. Thereafter, he closed his evidence.
2. The statement of the accused was recorded, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused denied the allegations and stated that it was a false case against him. He did not want to lead any evidence in defence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. D. Bansal, Advocate, did not address any argument assailing the conviction of the petitioner before me. His solitary contention was speedy trial was the essence of justice and inordinate delay in disposal of the case itself caused sufficient agony to the petitioner; so, it was a fit case where the petitioner should not be sent to jail at this stage and the sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period during which he remained confined. His contention is that sample was taken on 20-9-1981 and more than 11 years have elapsed. He has further submitted that the present revision petition is pending since 1985; that the petitioner is on bail and that the prolonged litigation itself is a ground for treating the petitioner in a lenient manner In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Braham Dass v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, (1988) 15 Cr, L. T. 493 (S.C.), wherein at has been held as under :–
“Coining to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant had been acquitted by the trial court and the High Court while reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the Appellate Judge has not made clear reference to clause (f). The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing the remaining period of the sentence, though ordinarily in an anti social offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the Court should take strict view of such matter.”
4. I find that, in the instant case, the petitioner had faced protracted litigation and had undergone sufficient mental harassment. So, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case where no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail at this stage for undergoing the remaining period of sentence.
5. As a result, I partly allow this revision petition and limit the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine, however, is maintained alongwith its default clause.