Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1408 (PNJ)

Sher Singh v. State Of U. T. Chandigarh

2002-12-18

JASBIR SINGH

body2002
Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Petitioner, who is present in Court, has been heard. He has stated that in view of his application moved by him today, lenient treatment may be given to him as he does not intend to contest the revision petition on merits. 2. Petitioner has filed this revision petition against judgment and order dated 27.7.1988, vide which he was convicted for offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the Act) and was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, he will further undergo RI for two months. Petitioner went in appeal which was dismissed by the appellate court below. That judgment is also under challenge in this revision petition. 3. It is apparent from the records that on 8.8.1985 at about 8.30 am, petitioner was intercepted by Government Food Inspector on Mulanpur road in the area of UT, Chandigarh. He was found carrying about 20 Kgs. of un- indicated milk kept for sale. After disclosing his identity, Food Inspector gave notice (Ex. PA) to him and thereafter purchased 660 mls of un-indicated milk from the petitioner on payment of Rs. 2.50 against a receipt (Ex. PB). As per rules, samples were drawn and other formalities were also completed at the spot. Thereafter, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst for its analysis. On receipt of report (Ex. PD) from the Public Analyst, it was found that the contents of sample were deficient in milk solids not fat by 21% of the minimum prescribed standard. Prosecution was then launched against the petitioner, who was charge sheeted for the above mentioned offence. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On appraisal of evidence, as led by the prosecution, the trial court had found him guilty of the offence, with which he was charged, convicted and sentenced him, as found mentioned in first paragraph of this order. His appeal was dismissed. 4. It is not necessary to go into details of this case as petitioner, who is present in Court, has moved an application, wherein he has stated that he had been facing the agony of trial, appeal and now pending revision petition, for the last more than 14 years. His appeal was dismissed. 4. It is not necessary to go into details of this case as petitioner, who is present in Court, has moved an application, wherein he has stated that he had been facing the agony of trial, appeal and now pending revision petition, for the last more than 14 years. Sword of conviction had been hanging over his head. He was not a previous convict and nothing adverse exists against him till date. After his conviction, he has settled in life and got married in the year 1993 and now he had two minor sons. He had already remained behind the bars for a period of 25 days. By stating all these facts, he prayed that his sentence be reduced. 5. To a specific question, whether he is still in the business of selling milk, petitioner stated that he had left this profession. 6. This Court feels that purpose of criminal law justice system is not only to bring peace, discipline and harmony in the society but also to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform himself. Pendency of this revision petition seems to have achieved the purpose above mentioned. As per statement made by the petitioner, after his conviction he had left the business of selling milk, reformed himself and not indulged, thereafter, in any other offence, after the conviction. He has made an attempt to reform himself which is required to be taken note of and he deserves to get benefit of the same. 7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2000(3) RCR(Criminal) 561 (SC) : 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161, observed as under :- "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law." 8. In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal, 1998(1) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587, their Lordships of Supreme Court, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place 18 years earlier to the decision of appeal and the parties were relatives, reduced the sentence to the period already undergo. 9. Similar is the opinion expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 600. In that case, in an appeal against acquittal, accused were convicted, however, they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment already undergone, keeping in view the fact that incident had occurred in the year 1981. 10. To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) RCR(Criminal) 467. 11. No doubt, minimum sentence, to be inflicted, is provided for an offence under the Act. 10. To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) RCR(Criminal) 467. 11. No doubt, minimum sentence, to be inflicted, is provided for an offence under the Act. However, keeping in view a fact that occurrence took place in the year 1985, trial was concluded in the month of July, 1988, appeal of the petitioner was dismissed in the month of November, 1990 and, thereafter, his revision petition has been pending in this Court, he deserves a lenient treatment. During all this period, fear continued to haunt his mind that at one stage or the other, he will be sent behind the bars, probably due to that, he has reformed himself and now leading life of a good citizen. 12. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, A.I.R. 1980 SC 360, in paragraph No. 24 have opined as under :- "While we agree that adulteration of an article of food is a serious anti- social offence which must be visited with exemplary punishment, it will be rather harsh to pass a sentence of imprisonment in the facts and circumstances of this case. Under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as in force at the material time, the Court had the discretion for special and adequate reasons under proviso to sub-section (1) not to pass a sentence of imprisonment. In the instant case, the respondent is a man aged 75 years. The offence was committed on August 1, 1968 i.e., more than eleven years ago. The order of acquittal was based on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Dhanrajs case. The samples were taken from sealed tins. These are all mitigating circumstances. We, accordingly, refrain from passing a substantive sentence of imprisonment and instead of sentence the respondent to the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months." 13. The samples were taken from sealed tins. These are all mitigating circumstances. We, accordingly, refrain from passing a substantive sentence of imprisonment and instead of sentence the respondent to the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months." 13. To the same effect is the opinion expressed by the Honble Supreme Court in Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988(2) RCR(Crl.) 184 (SC) : 1988(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 899, wherein in paragraph No. 5 it was observed as under :- "Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant had been acquitted by the trial Court and the High Court while reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the appellate judge has not made clear reference to clause (f). The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing the remaining period of the sentence, though ordinarily in an anti-social offence punishable under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the Court should take strict view of such matter." 14. Above observations, made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court were followed by a Single Bench of this Court in Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR 125 and it was observed as under :- "It is correct that although minimum sentence to be imposed upon a convict is prescribed by the statute yet keeping in view the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony which he undergone on account of a protracted trial due to the fault of the prosecution by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction." 15. The observations in Braham Dasss case (supra) were followed by this Court in cases titled as Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports 183 and Ishwar Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1994(1) Recent Criminal Reports 161 and the sentence awarded to the accused therein, under the Act, was reduced to the period already undergone. 16. The observations in Braham Dasss case (supra) were followed by this Court in cases titled as Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports 183 and Ishwar Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1994(1) Recent Criminal Reports 161 and the sentence awarded to the accused therein, under the Act, was reduced to the period already undergone. 16. This Court feels that the facts and circumstances of this case are such that if at this stage, after a period of 14 years of conviction of the petitioner, he is sent behind the bars, it will affect not only him but his family also. Lest he may not become harden criminal, it is desirable to show leniency towards him. As stated by the petitioner, he had already left the business of selling milk. 17. By noticing the ratio of above mentioned judgments and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, conviction is upheld and sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone by him. However, fine imposed upon him is enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- which shall be deposited with the trial Court by the petitioner. As per petitioner, he had already deposited Rs. 1,000/- towards fine, as directed by the trial court. He undertakes to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- within one month with the trial court, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 18. Revision petition stands allowed, to the extent mentioned above.