Crl. Revn. No. 2338 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 2338 of 2009
Date of Decision : September 09, 2009
Georg Masih .... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana .... Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Shakun Chaudhri, Advocate
for Mr. L. M. Gulati, Advocate
for the petitioner.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Georg Masih has filed this revision petition challenging his
conviction and sentence by both the courts below.
The petitioner was tried for offence under Section 7 read with
Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in
short – the Act) in criminal complaint instituted by Government Food
Inspector alleging that sample of cow milk seized from the petitioner, who
was carrying 100 liters of cow milk for public sale, was found to be
adulterated as per report of Public Analyst because milk solids not fat were
found to be 7.9% as against the minimum prescribed standard of 8.5%. The
petitioner, on appearance before the trial court, exercised his right under
Section 13 (2) of the Act and second part of the sample was sent to Central
Crl. Revn. No. 2338 of 2009 2
Food Laboratory, Pune, from where report was received that milk fat was
3.3% against the minimum prescribed standard of 4% and milk solids not
fat were 8% against minimum standard of 8.5%. Report of Central Food
Laboratory superceeded the report of Public Analyst, as per provisions of
the Act.
Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla vide
judgment dated 27.07.2006 and order dated 01.08.2006 convicted the
petitioner under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment
for 30 days. Appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by
learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide judgment dated 25.08.2009. Feeling
aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
case file.
There is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner by both the
courts below. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and is
not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference at the hands
of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the
prosecution led sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner. The
petitioner even exercised right under Section 13 (2) of the Act. However,
the sample of milk seized from the petitioner was found to be adulterated
even by Central Food Laboratory.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no infirmity or illegality in the
finding of conviction of the petitioner. The said finding is accordingly
upheld.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that
the sample was seized from the petitioner on 12.09.1999 i.e. almost ten
years ago and therefore, sentence warrants reduction.
Crl. Revn. No. 2338 of 2009 3
I have carefully considered the contention, but find no force
therein. The petitioner has been awarded minimum sentence prescribed by
the Act for the offence. In addition thereto, menace of adulteration of food
articles is assuming alarming proportions these days. It has become difficult
to get any food article unadulterated in the market. Accordingly, no
sympathy can be shown with persons selling adulterated food articles. The
sentence imposed on the petitioner cannot be said to be excessive keeping in
view the menace of adulteration of food articles.
In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision
petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
September 09, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE