Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tikka Ram Son Of Gordhan Dass vs The State Of Haryana, Through Food ... on 5 February, 2003
Author: Nirmal Singh
Bench: Nirmal Singh
JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J.
1. This revision has been directed against the judgment/order dated 22.10.1988 vide which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for tow months under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The petitioner filed appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. In the appeal, the conviction and sentence were upheld, aggrieved by which the present revision petition has been filed.
2. In succinct, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.9.1987 at about 9.05 A.M. Shri C.L. Sikri, Government Food Inspector, Sonepat alongwith Dr. K.R. Rathee, Dy. Chief Medical Officer went to the shop of the petitioner. The petitioner was found in possession of 10 kg. of boiled cow's milk for public sale contained in an aluminium patilla. The Government Food Inspector disclosed his identity and served notice in writing Ex. (SIC) upon the petitioner and purchased 750 mls of cow's milk from the petitioner after stirring and mixing the same properly for Rs. 3.50 P. The receipt Ex.PB was also obtained by him. The milk so purchased was then divided into three equal parts and put in three dry and clear bottles. After adding the required quantity of formalin as preservative, the bottles were stopped and sealed according to law. Thereafter one of the sealed sample alongwith memo in form VI was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh in a sealed box through railway parcel and the other two sealed samples were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Sonepat alongwith memo in form VII.
3. The Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, on analysis found the milk fat to be deficient by 10% and milk solids not fat to be deficient by 8% of the minimum prescribed standard. On receipt of the above report of the Public Analyst, complaint Ex.PE was filed in the Court by the Food Inspector.
4. After appearance of the petitioner in the Court, the second part of the sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Mysore for analysis and report on his request, who sent his report Ex.PG to the effect that the milk fat contents were found to be below the minimum prescribed limit of 4 per cent.
5. The case was tried summarily by the trial court. Notice of accusation was served upon the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove his case, the complaint C.L. Sikri GFI appeared as PW-1 and produced Dr. R.K. Rathee as PW-2. Maan Singh was given up by the complainant as having been won over by the accused.
7. When the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, he denied simplicitor and alleged false implication. He pleaded that he is a tea-vendor. He has admitted that the Food Inspector and Dr. K.R. Rathee came to his shop and took the sample of milk. However, he has stated that the milk was not stirred and the cream was not thoroughly mixed. The petitioner has not led any evidence in his defence.
8. After hearing the Government Food Inspector and the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para-1 of the judgment, by the Court's below.
9. Shri Baldev Singh, learned senior counsel for (SIC) argued on the quantum of sentence only. He contended that the petitioner was facing the agony of the protracted trial for the last 15 years and some reduction in the sentence may be made. He further submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court in Ram Chander v. State of Haryana 2000 (3) RCR (Criminal) 545 reduced the sentence to already undergone.
10. Shri K.S. Chauhan AG, Haryana has not opposed the prayer for reduction in sentence.
11. The petitioner has remained in protracted litigation, suffered the agony of the trial for the last more than 15 years and has suffered both mentally and financially. There is nothing on the record to show that before or after the registration of the complaint the petitioner has indulged in any other criminal activity, therefore, in view of Ram Chander's case (supra), the conviction of the petitioner is maintained. The sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner will undergo the same sentence as awarded by the trial court. The petitioner is directed to deposit the fine within two months of receipt of the copy of the order.
12. With the above modification in the sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed.