Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 159 (PNJ)

Parshadi v. State of Haryana

2004-02-11

NIRMAL SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. (Oral) - The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for keeping in his possession about 15 Kgs. of cow milk for public sale, on G.T. Road, Palwal. The sample was drawn by Daya Kishan, Food Inspector, as per law. 2. After the trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 2.12.1996 to undergo RI for a period of one year under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo RI for two months. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Faridabad, against the order of conviction and sentence. The said appeal was accepted vide order dated 4.3.1998 and the case was remanded back with the direction to the learned Magistrate to try the case either in a summary manner or, if it is desirable, as a warrant case and then pass a speaking order to that effect. 4. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, again tried the case as a warrant case and then convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 16.3.1999 and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act vide order of even date. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo RI for the three months. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner again preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.7.1999. 6. Aggrieved by the judgments passed by the courts below, the petitioner has preferred the present Criminal Revision. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 8. Mr. Gorakh Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner on merits. He made his submission only on the quantum of sentence. He submitted that milk sample, which was taken from the petitioner, was having a milk fat of 3.4% as against 4% and solid 6.9% as against 8.5% but he stated that there is no report that the milk was injurious to the health of human beings or the milk was not consumable. He submitted that milk sample, which was taken from the petitioner, was having a milk fat of 3.4% as against 4% and solid 6.9% as against 8.5% but he stated that there is no report that the milk was injurious to the health of human beings or the milk was not consumable. He further contended that the petitioner is facing trial since April, 1990. The petitioner, at the time of taking the sample, was aged about 56 years and now he must be above 70 years. He also submitted that where there is a long delay in the disposal of the case and the petitioner has suffered for a long time, this Court has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on following authorities :- 1. Mahavir v. State through Govt. Food Inspector, 2000(4) RCR (Crl.) 208. 2. Behari Lal v. State of (U.T.) Chandigarh, 2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 222. 3. Des Raj v. The State of Haryana, 1996 The Criminal Law Times 482. 4. Vijay Kumar v. The State of Haryana, 1996 The Criminal Law Times 115. 5. Mohinder Singh v. State (Chandigarh Administration), 1997(1) PLR 623. 6. Satpal v. State of Haryana, 1997(4) RCC 130. 9. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the State, has not opposed the prayer for reduction in sentence. 10. The petitioner has faced the agony of trial for the last about 14 years and is not a previous convict. There is nothing on the record to show that before and after the registration of this case, the petitioner has indulged in any other criminal activity. 11. Therefore, taking into consideration all these facts, 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 RI for the three months. 12. With this modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.