Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shyam Lal vs State Of Haryana on 16 May, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Crl.Revision No.809 of 2013(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Revision No.809 of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision:16.05.2013
Shyam Lal .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Vipul Jindal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Gourav Verma, Assistant Advocate General,
Haryana, for the respondent-State.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant criminal revision petition and emanating from the record is that, in the wake of complaint filed by the State of Haryana through its Government Food Inspector and having completed all the codal formalities, the petitioner-convict Shyam Lal son of Kashmiri Lal, was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 10.01.2011 and Crl.Revision No.809 of 2013(O&M) 2 order of sentence dated 12.01.2011.
2. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal filed by him, was dismissed as well by the Appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment dated 12.02.2013.
3. Sequelly, the petitioner-convict still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present criminal revision petition, to challenge the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.P.C.
4. During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (L.N.Mittal, J.) dismissed the revision petition on merits. However, notice of motion was issued regarding the quantum of sentence only, by virtue of order dated 18.03.2013, which in substance is as under:-
"Petitioner Sham Lal stands convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the 'Act') and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of `1,000/- by both the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
The petitioner was allegedly found in possession of mixed milk for sale. Sample thereof was taken by Government Food Inspector (GFI). The sample on analysis was found to be adulterated in as much as it contained 3.10% milk fat as against minimum requirement of 4.5% and contained milk solid not fat 4.90% as against minimum requirement of 8.5%.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that in complaint Annexure P- 2, GFI-complainant has not written in his own hand that the milk was made homogeneous. However, this fact has been duly mentioned in the complaint in the print form that the sample was purchased after mixing the whole contents and making the same Crl.Revision No.809 of 2013(O&M) 3 uniform. It was also argued by the petitioner that it is not mentioned in the complaint that Dr. Ravindra Sandhu was also present at the time of taking sample. The contention is again devoid of merit because it has been mentioned in the complaint that the sample was taken in the presence of witnesses. Name of Dr. Ravindra Sandhu has been cited in the list of witnesses. Moreover, documents annexed with the complaint made it clear that the sample was taken in his presence. Conviction of the petitioner is well founded. Both the Courts below have analyzed the evidence and come to concurrent finding regarding guilt of the petitioner. The said finding is not shown to be suffering from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error nor the same is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence so as to call for interference in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner is upheld. As regards quantum of sentence, counsel for the petitioner contended that milk is a primary food for which sentence of imprisonment for less than six months can also be awarded. It was submitted that the petitioner is facing the agony of trial including appeal and revision petition for almost nine years. Notice of motion re: quantum of sentence only for 26.04.2013."
5. At the very outset, the bare perusal of the custody certificate filed on behalf of the State would reveal that the petitioner-convict has already undergone the substantive portion of his sentence of imprisonment of three months and five days, out of total sentence of imprisonment of six months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, awarded by the trial Court.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner-convict has contended with some amount of vehemence that, since milk is a primary food, for which, he(petitioner) was convicted, so, lesser imprisonment be awarded to him, in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Crl.Revision No.809 of 2013(O&M) 4 cases Ram Lal Versus State of Rajasthan, 2000(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 646; Laskari Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2000(9) SCC 256 and of this Court in cases Kundan Singh Versus State of Haryana through GFI Gurgaon in Crl.Revision No.1241 of 2007 decided on October 08, 2007; Ilyas Versus The State of Haryana in Crl.Revision No.2516 of 2011 decided on December 07, 2011, wherein it was ruled that under these circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment of three months should be awarded. Learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and legal proposition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, it will be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the sentence of imprisonment of six months imposed on the petitioner-convict by the trial Court is reduced for the following reasons:-
(i) The sample in this case was taken on 07.06.2004 and he has faced the pangs and suffered the agony of protracted trial, appeal & revision for the last more than about nine years.
(ii) As per custody certificate, the petitioner-convict has already undergone the substantive portion of his sentence of imprisonment of three months and five days.
(iii) There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case.
(iv) He is an old person of 55 years and
(v) He remained on bail during the course of trial.
8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed on merits and the impugned judgments of conviction & order of sentence of fine are maintained. However, the sentence of Crl.Revision No.809 of 2013(O&M) 5 imprisonment of six months imposed on the petitioner-convict by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. three months and five days. The impugned order of sentence is accordingly modified to the extent and in the manner depicted herein above.
Needless to mention that natural consequences & compliance will naturally follow accordingly.
May 16, 2013 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
seema JUDGE
Crl.Revision No.809 of 2013(O&M) 6