Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharam Pal Son Of Shri Ram Sarup vs State Of Haryana on 17 January, 2003
Author: R.C. Kathuria
Bench: R.C. Kathuria
JUDGMENT R.C. Kathuria, J.
1. Dharam Pal, petitioner-accused has filed the present revision against the judgment dated 25.5.1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against judgment dated 4.11.1988 rendered by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat convicting the petitioner under Section 61(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case as stated in the complaint lodged by the Government Food Inspector, A.R. Nehra are that on 26.4.1985 at about 6.30 P.M., he alongwith S.K. Gasain was present at Sonepat-Bahalgarh road near ECE Factory when the accused was intercepted by them. He was found in possession of 18 kg of goat milk for public sale contained in a drum. After serving notice in writing to him, Food Inspector purchased 660 ml of goat milk against the payment of Rs. 2/- for analysis. Milk so purchased was divided into three equal parts and transferred in three dry and clean bottles.Necessary drops of Formalin were added in each bottle and thereafter bottles were sealed in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Spot memo attested by the accused and the witnesses was prepared. Out of these bottles, one bottle was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Haryana, Chandigarh, while the remaining two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Sonepat. On analysis, the Public Analyst found the sample to be adulterated as it was found to contain milk fat 9% deficient and milk solids not fat to be 28% deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. Dis-satisfied with the said report, another sample was got sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, who in his report Ex.PF dated 29.8.1985 declared the sample to be adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of goat milk of Haryana as laid down in the table below item A.11.01.11 of PFA Rules (1955) as milk solids not fat were less than the minimum prescribed limit. On these allegations, notice under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Act was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To support the charge, complainant, A.R. Nehra, Government Food Inspector appeared as PW-2. In addition, Dr. S.K. Goasain, PW-1 supported the facts stated with regard to purchase of goat milk from the accused for the purpose of analysis and the sample proceedings taken at the spot. Sat Narain, PW-3, Clerk of the C.M.O. Office proved the copy of the notice which was served upon the accused through registered post alongwith copy of the report of the Public Analyst.
4. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as, 'Code'), the petitioner-accused denied the prosecution allegations completely. He pleaded that the sample was obtained from somebody else and he was asked to witness the sample proceedings but when he refused to do so, he was falsely implicated in this case. To support his stand, he examined Ram Pal, DW-1, who testified that Food Inspector had intercepted a milk vendor and had asked the petitioner-accused to witness the sample proceedings but he had refused to do so, upon which he was threatened by the Food Inspector. Deep Chand, DW-2 was tendered for cross-examination.
5. The trial Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence led on record rejected the defence version of the accused and accepting the prosecution evidence, convicted and sentence him as noticed above. Appeal preferred by the petitioner-accused was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat as per order dated 25.5.1989. Aggrieved by these orders, the present revision petition has been filed.
6. Government Food Inspector, A.R. Nehra and Dr. S.K. Gosain in their statements have given a persistent and consistent version with regard to interception of the accused on 26.4.1985 when he was found in possession of 18 kg of goat milk for sale in a drum. They have also testified with regard to the purchase of 660 ml of milk from him after notice Ex.PA in this regard was served upon him against the payment of Rs. 2/- for which receipt Ex.PB was obtained from him. Spot memo Ex. PC prepared by the Food Inspector, attested by Dr. S.K. Gasain and the accused have also been proved by them. It is somewhat surprising that accused in his statement has even denied his signatures on these documents. His assertion and that of DW-1 are that this case has been foisted upon him because he had refused to become a witness of sample proceedings against another milk vendor, intercepted by the Food Inspector on that date, as such, carry no conviction at all and have been rightly rejected by the courts below. Faced with this situation, learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused during the course of arguments prayed for leniency in matter of sentence to already undergone by him because accused has been facing the prosecution for the last more than 14 years as the sample in question was drawn on 4.11.1988.
7. In order to appreciate the submission made, provisions of Section 16 of the Act have to be noticed. It has been expressly provided therein that when the offence is proved under Section 16(1)(a) to (g) of the Act, then the convict in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of Section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. Sub-clause (i) and (ii) to the proviso of this Section are aimed at limiting of the rigorous of the sentence so provided. The so called special reason stated by the counsel for the petitioner-accused for reducing the sentence is that he has to face the trial for a period of more than 14 years. The question as to what should constitute special reasons came to be discussed in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Viney Nanda, AIR 2001 SC 611, wherein it was laid down that where the mandate of the law is clear and unambiguous, upon conviction the Court has no option but to pass the sentence as provided under the statute. Reference was made to cases where only sentence of fine was imposed without sending the accused to jail was taken notice of and it was observed that perusal of the aforesaid judgments indicate that in none of these cases the court considered the effect of provisions of law prescribing minimum sentence upon conviction under the Act. Accordingly, minimum sentence provided under the statute was imposed. Dealing with the issue of requirement of statute for imposing the minimum sentence, the court has to record special reasons. It was observed that "special reasons" have to be distinguished from 'good' or 'special reasons'. Similarly pendency of criminal case for over a period of time can also not be treated as special reason. Prolonged litigation in the country is admittedly a general reason for criminal case.
8. In State of Haryana v. Pawan Kumar, 1998 SCC (Criminal) 1510, the Apex Court while taking into account that since the offence was committed more than 16 years ago, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which was less than the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act. After setting aside the order of sentence of High Court substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months was imposed upon the accused. Therefore, in the present case merely because the petitioner has been facing the prosecution for the last more than 14 years, as such, cannot be taken into account as a justification to reduce his sentence because once the offence is held to have been proved appropriate sentence has to be imposed as prescribed under the Act. Therefore, prayer made from the side of the accused as such cannot be accepted under the circumstances of the case.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.