CRR NO. 1015 OF 2002 [ 1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 1015 OF 2002
Date of decision: 24.02.2009
Karam Chand ......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana .....Respondent
Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr. V.M.Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Khatkar, AAG, Haryana.
A.N.JINDAL, J
Assailed in the petition is the judgment dated 08.05.2002
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, dismissing the
appeal of the petitioners and upholding his conviction and sentence of
one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 7 read with Section 16
(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act(Hereinafter
referred to as the Act).
Brief facts of the case are that on 27.05.1986, Shri Buta
Singh Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. Mohinder singh visited the
premises situated at Naraingarh. He was found present at the spot
and told the shop was owned by Joginder Lal. Food Inspector after
disclosing his identity, purchased 660 mls. cow’s milk for a sum of Rs.
2.50 Ps. The purchased milk was divided into three equal parts and
poured into three dry and clean bottles equally. 18 drops of Formalin
were added in each of the sample bottle as preservative, and the
bottles were properly secured, stoppered, fastened, wrapped and
sealed as per law. One of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst,
who reported the same to the adulterated as it was found containing
milk fat 57.5% deficient and milk solids not fat 27% deficient of the
CRR NO. 1015 OF 2002 [ 2]
minimum prescribed standards. A copy of the report of the Public
Analyst was sent to the accused/appellant vide registered post as
required under Section 13(2) of the Act. On these facts, the complaint
was filed.
The complaint was tried as a warrant case. He was charged
under Section16(1)(a)(i)read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act.
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C petitioner
denied all the allegations and pleaded his falsely implication.
Ultimately trial ended in conviction and his appeal also failed.
Arguments heard.
On scrutiny of the judgment no such illegality much less
irregularity has been detected. The evidence appears to have been
appreciated by the courts below in the right perspective. The
consistent findings returned by the courts below cannot be interfered,
unless these based on misappreciation or misreading of evidence faced
with the situation, counsel has surrendered the petitioner to the
mercy of this Court by paying for some leniency in the quantum of
sentence.
In this regard, it may be observed that the occurrence took
place way back in the year 1986. The petitioner has already suffered a
lot of agony during the trial and due to the protracted proceedings in
this Court. He has also undergone some period of imprisonment. As
such this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence
by directing that the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation
of good conduct for a period of one year furnishing of bail bond in the
sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount failing to
comply with the terms of the bond, he would be ready to serve the
remaining part of the sentence. The sentence of fine is converted into
costs of litigation and he is directed to pay further costs of Rs.20,000/-
CRR NO. 1015 OF 2002 [ 3]
within three months failing which this petition shall be treated as
dismissed.
Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ambala for compliance.
[A.N.JINDAL]
JUDGE
24th February, 2009
SKaushik