In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Revision No. 337 of 2003
Date of decision: March 04, 2009
Surinder
... Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana
... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Praduman Yadav, DAG, Haryana for the respondent.
A.N. Jindal, J
This revision petition is directed against the judgment
dated 16.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jhajjar, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Surinder
(herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated
9/10.9.1999 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar,
convicting and sentencing him under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (herein referred as 'the Act').
However, the sentence was modified and reduced to rigorous
imprisonment for 1- ½ years without alteration in the sentence of fine.
The factual matrix of the case is that on 20.7.1994, at
about 7.30 a.m. Himmat Singh, Government Food Inspector along with
Dr. Kumud Sharma intercepted the petitioner who was having 20 kgs
of cow milk in his possession, for public sale. After serving notice on
the prescribed form, he purchased 750 mls of cow milk for Rs.6/-. He
divided the same into three equal parts and put in the three dry clean
empty bottles. Two drops of 40% formalin measuring 25 mls were
added as preservative in each bottle. He sent one sealed bottle along
with memorandum in Form VII to the Public Analyst, Haryana,
Chandigarh and deposited the remaining two samples with the Local
Crl. Revision No. 337 of 2003 -2-
***
Health Authority. Public Analyst, Haryana opined that the milk fat was
deficient by 25% and milk solids not fat were short by 23.5% then the
minimum prescribed standards under the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Rules, 1955. As such complaint was filed.
After recording pre-charge evidence, he was charged under
Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, to which he pleaded not
guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution led evidence and ultimately the
trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed with
modification in the sentence.
Arguments Heard.
Without assailing the judgment of conviction, it is urged that
the petitioner being offender and has already undergone more than five
months of the substantive sentence deserves concession in the quantum of
sentence.
Having examined the impugned judgment, the same is shorn of
any illegality much less irregularity resulting into miscarriage of justice.
The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No
sufficient grounds are made out enabling his court to interfere in the
concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the petitioner. As such, the
impugned judgment of conviction is maintained.
As regards quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the
occurrence took place way back in the year 1994 and the petitioner has
suffered a lot on account of the protracted proceedings. He has already
undergone five months out of the substantive sentence, thus, it would not be
in the fitness of things to send him to imprisonment at this stage. The ends
of justice would be met if he is extended benefit of probation.
Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence awarded to
the petitioner is modified to the extent that he be released on probation
under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing
a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar for a period of
one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and
keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready
to serve remaining sentence as and when called for. However, the fine is
Crl. Revision No. 337 of 2003 -3-
***
converted into costs of litigation. In addition to that, the petitioner is
directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- more towards costs of litigation within
three months from today.
Copy of the judgment be sent the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jhajjar for compliance.
March 04, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge