Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Mange Ram on 27 April, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.448-SB of 1994
Date of Decision : April 27,2010
State of Haryana
.....Appellant
Versus
Mange Ram
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Ms. Hem Lata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
T.P.S. MANN, J.
Judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani on 25.3.1994 while reducing the sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed upon the accused-respondent by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') to one till the rising of the Court, has been challenged by the State of Haryana in the present appeal.
The accused-respondent was tried for the aforementioned offence on the allegations that on 30.1.1990 at about 9.00 A.M., sample of cow's milk taken from him by Food Inspector Chand Ram Grewal was found to be adulterated as the milk fat was 7.1% while the milk solids not fat as 8.2% and, thus, milk fat was deficient by 3.5% of the minimum prescribed standard. After completion of the formalities, the prosecution Criminal Appeal No.448-SB of 1994 -2- was launched against the accused-respondent by way of a criminal complaint filed by the Government Food Inspector. He was served with a notice of accusation to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani vide judgment and order dated 1.10.1992 held that the prosecution was successful in bringing home the guilt against the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)
(i) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the accused- respondent filed an appeal. Vide judgment dated 25.3.1994, Additional Sessions Juge, Bhiwani did not find any infirmity in the findings of the trial Court in convicting the accused-respondent of the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. However, he was sentenced till the rising of the Court and to pay the fine imposed by the trial Court or in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. With the said modification in the sentence, the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the State for enhancing the sentence of the accused-respondent.
It is true that once an offender is held guilty for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, he is required to Criminal Appeal No.448-SB of 1994 -3- be punished with minimum sentence for a period of six months alongwith fine. However, at the same time the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the accused has a right of speedy trial and he cannot be made to attend the Court for an indefinite period of time. In a given case, if he is made to suffer the agony of criminal prosecution indefinitely, the Courts would step in to even reduce the sentence to a period less than the minimum prescribed sentence.
In Parshadi v. State of Haryana, 2004(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 360, the sentence of an accused, who stood convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was reduced to that already undergone by him as he had been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for a sufficiently long period of time. While doing so, the Court relied upon a number of judgments, viz. Mahavir v. State through Govt. Food Inspector, 2000(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 208, Behari Lal v. State of (U.T.) Chandigarh, 2000(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 222, Des Raj v.The State of Haryana, 1996(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 689, Vijay Kumar v. The State of Haryana, 1996(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 554 (P&H), Mohinder Singh v. State (Chandigarh Administration), 1997(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 168 (P&H) and Satpal v. State of Haryana, 1997(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 15 (P&H).
In Narinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2008(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 288, this Court, once again, reduced the sentence of a convict under Section 7 read with section 6(1)(a)(i) of the Act to that already undergone by him.
Criminal Appeal No.448-SB of 1994 -4-
In the present case, the sample from the accused-respondent was taken on 30.1.1990. The complaint was instituted against him on 29.3.1990. It was on 9.5.1991 that he was served with a notice of accusation. After recording of the evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him on 1.10.1992. He then filed an appeal for challenging his conviction and sentence. The said appeal came to be decided after about 1½ year of its filing. All these circumstances were found by the lower appellate Court as sufficient to hold that in the event of the accused- respondent was sent to jail at that point of time for undergoing the period of sentence as ordered by the trial Court, it would impinge upon Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, the ends of justice would be met if he was sentenced till the rising of the Court.
The present appeal filed by the State of Haryana has remained pending for about 16 years. Therefore, this Court would be hesitant in enhancing the sentence of the accused-respondent to that as awarded by the trial Court.
In the given set of facts and circumstances of the matter, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani.
The appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed.
( T.P.S. MANN )
April 27, 2010 JUDGE
satish