Crl. Rev. No. 436 of 1996 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Rev. No.436 of 1996
Decided on : 28-07-2009
Ramesh Kumar
....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, DAG, Haryana.
MAHESH GROVER, J
The petitioner has been convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the
Act) by the Trial Court and awarded a sentence to undergo RI for a period
of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In appeal, Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide its order dated 14.6.1996 reduced the
awarded sentence to six months.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a sample of
milk was seized from him on 24.2.1988. The sample was of cow’s milk and
on analysis it was found to be containing fat to the extent of 2.9% against
4% standard while milk solids were found to be 10.2%. In an application
moved by the petitioner, the sample was examined again by Central Food
Laboratory and in this examination fat was found to be 2.2% while milk
solids 10.5%. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that sample was seized in the year 1988 and the petitioner has
faced the agony of trial for last 21 years and that he had already undergone a
Crl. Rev. No. 436 of 1996 2
sentence of one month out of the total sentence of six months awarded to
him. He further contends that no fruitful purpose will be served if he is now
confronted with the situation of undergoing remaining part of the sentence.
Therefore, he contends that his plea of reduction of sentence or in the
alternative alteration of sentence to fine may be considered sympathetically.
The petitioner was aged 24 years at the time of seizure of the sample and
now he is much advanced in age. He further states that he does not wish to
address the Court on merits.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contends that
in view of the fact that sample of the milk could not meet the prescribed
standards and was found to be adulterated, petitioner deserves no leniency.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the record.
There is, indeed, no doubt that compassion should not be
shown to persons, who are playing with the life and health of people, but, at
the same time, noticing the fact that the sample was taken in the year 1988
and the conviction and sentence was reduced by the appellate Court in the
year 1996 and also the fact that 13 years have passed thereafter, I am of the
opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to
jail after such a long period and it would be in the fitness of things if the
sentence awarded to him is reduced to that of fine. For this view, I draw
support from a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Krishan Gopal
Sharma and another versus Government of NCT of Delhi 1996(1) FAC
258 = (1996) 4 SCC 513 and also from the judgments of Allahabad High
Court in Bhageloo Versus State of U.P and another 1996 (2) FAC 199
and of this Court in Mahavir Versus State through Govt. Food Inspector
Crl. Rev. No. 436 of 1996 3
2000(4) RCR (criminal) 208.
In Shri Krishan Gopal Sharma’s case (supra), their
Lordships of the Apex Court observed as follows:-
“14 …. It should be emphasised that strict
adherence to Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules
framed thereunder should be insisted and enforced for
safeguarding the interest of consumers of articles of food. In
the Constitution Bench decision in Tejani case { f(1974) 1 SCC
167 } it has been indicated that in order to prevent unmerited
leniency in the matter of awarding sentence for an offence
under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the legislature
by amendment has incorporated the provision of minimum
sentence. But it has also been indicated that the court, for
adequate and special reasons, may bring down the minimum
sentence. The Constitution Bench has also observed that all
violations of provisions of the Act and Rules need not be
treated alike because “there are violations and violations”. In
the special facts of these cases, it appears to us that a deterrent
punishment of imprisonment is not called for and imposition of
fine will meet the ends of justice. The criminal cases were
initiated on the basis of samples taken in 1987. The accused-
applicants have already faced the ordeal of criminal trials for a
number of years. In the aforesaid circumstances, further agony
of criminal trials need not be prolonged. Conclusion of the
criminal cases will also save time and expenditure of the
respondent.
Crl. Rev. No. 436 of 1996 4
15. In that view of the matter, we direct for
quashing the criminal cases in question on payment of costs of
Rs.7500/- in each of these appeals as in our view on conviction
of the appellants in the criminal cases initiated against them,
such fine would have met the ends of justice. The appeals are
accordingly disposed of.”
Consequently, the present revision petition is disposed of in the
following terms:-
(i)the conviction of the petitioner shall remain intact;
(ii)the sentence of the imprisonment awarded to him is
converted to that of fine of Rs.10,000/- which shall include
the fine of Rs.2000/- already deposited by the petitioner.
(iii) The fine shall be deposited before the Trial Court within a
period of four months from today, failing which the
conviction of the petitioner as awarded by the Court below
shall stand revived.
July 28, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge