Punjab-Haryana High Court
Santosh Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 31 July, 2012
Crl. Revision No. 38 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No. 38 of 2012
Date of Decision: 31.7.2012
***
Santosh Kumar .. Petitioner
VS.
State of Punjab .. Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
*** VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J By way of instant revision petition, a challenge has been laid to the judgment of conviction of the petitioner dated 14.7.2009 vide which he had been held guilty and convicted for an offence punishable under section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954(for brevity, the Act) and the order of sentence vide which the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/-, in default of payment of which he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months and the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated 19.12.2011 vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said judgment has been dismissed, confirming his conviction and sentence as awarded by learned trial court.
The petitioner was running a food joint under the name of Crl. Revision No. 38 of 2012 2 M/s Santosh Hutt and Chinese Foods in the area of Basant Avenue Market, Amritsar and was found in possession of 3 kgs of tomato sauce contained in a glass bottle meant for sale to the public. Observing all the necessary formalities under the Act and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 the Food Inspector took the sample of the said tomato sauce for analysis and after dividing the same into three equal portions, bottled them, sealed them as per rules. On analysis, the sample was found adulterated and unfit for human consumption, on which prosecution was launched and in due course of the trial, the petitioner was held guilty and convicted by learned trial court and the judgment of his conviction and order on sentence were affirmed by the appellate court vide impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the judgments of the courts below holding the petitioner guilty for the offence and convicting him thereunder. He has, however, challenged the sentence awarded to the petitioner. According to him, it was a case where sample of tomato sauce contained in a glass bottle was taken and the sample was found to have dead insects in the same. According to him, the adulteration in this case is not by way of addition of a material which may prove be be injurious to health. He has submitted that the Food Inspector clearly admitted in his cross- examination that he did not see any insect, dead or alive in the sauce when he took the sample. According to him, the petitioner has already paid the amount of fine and out of the sentence of one year, the petitioner has already served the jail term for a period of more than seven months. According to him, looking to the nature of the Crl. Revision No. 38 of 2012 3 adulteration, the petitioner is entitled to some relief in the matter of punishment by reducing the sentence awarded by the courts below to the period already spent by the petitioner in jail.
Learned State counsel has submitted that it is a case of adulteration and the petitioner who indulged in the same, is not entitled to any leniency.
Insects, may be flies or of some other class, can enter the bottle at the time of its opening for taking out the material or putting the stopper back. The adulteration in this case does not appear to be intentional. The petitioner has already undergone the sentence for seven months and a few days as per the custody certificate submitted by learned State counsel. So, in the instant case the interest of justice would be served if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced from one year to the period already spent by him in jail. In these circumstances, maintaining the judgments of the courts below of conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 16(1)(a) of the Act as well as the sentence of fine, the petition is partly allowed, reducing the sentence awarded to the petitioner to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
Criminal revision accordingly stands partly allowed.
July 31,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) Jiten JUDGE