Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1193 (PNJ)

Chaman Lal v. U. T. , Chandigarh

2002-11-13

VINEY MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this court through the present revision petition challenging the judgment dated July 27, 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby his appeal challenging the judgment dated September 10, 1986 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh was dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner were maintained. The petitioner was convicted and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. As per the prosecution, on February 1, 1985 the premises of the petitioner was inspected by the Food Inspector and he was found in possession of 10 kgs of Dal Moongi in a tin for sale. A sample was taken and ultimately on analysis it was found to be adulterated. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector filed a criminal complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The petitioner was summoned. He appeared. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and opted to face the trial. 3. I have heard Shri G.S. Sawhney, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajay Lamba with Shri Hemant Bass, the learned counsel for the Union Territory. 4. Shri G.S. Sawhney, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter pertains to the year 1985 and the petitioner has already suffered a protracted trial. Even the present petition has remained pending in this Court since 1989. Shri Sawhney submits that under these circumstances the petitioner may not be sent back to jail but may be ordered to be released on probation. 5. In support of his contention, Shri Sawhney has relied upon a judgment of this Court 2001(2) RCR(Crl.) 331 : 2001(2) Chandigarh Criminal Cases (HC) 54 titled Jog Dhian v. State of Haryana wherein it has been held that even in a case where minimum sentence has been prescribed, the benefit of probation contained in the Probation of Offender Act, 1961 can still be granted. 6. I have considered the aforesaid submission made by Shri Sawhney and find myself in agreement with the same. Under these circumstances, while maintaining the order of conviction against the petitioner he is ordered to be released on probation. 6. I have considered the aforesaid submission made by Shri Sawhney and find myself in agreement with the same. Under these circumstances, while maintaining the order of conviction against the petitioner he is ordered to be released on probation. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on probation on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh with an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear and receive sentence during the said period if and when called upon to do so. With the above modification, the present petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.