Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 368 (PNJ)

Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana

2004-03-24

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani dated 21.4.1989 arising out of the judgment dated 12.9.1987 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani whereby the learned Magistrate has held the petitioner guilty under section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) and has sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. However, the appellate court has reduced the substantive sentence from one year to six months and the fine from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. Hence, this revision. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the order of conviction and has confined his arguments to the question of sentence only. He contends that although minimum sentence is prescribed under the Act, this Court while taking the view that the accused are facing the trial for many years have either reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by them or have released them on probation as well. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relies upon the following judgments :- i) Harbans Lal v. State of Haryana, 2001(2) RCR(Crl.) 333; ii) Hardwari Lal v. State of Haryana, 2003(1) RCR(Crl.) 10; iii) Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCC 13; iv) Jog Dhian v. State of Haryana, 2001(2) RCR(Crl.) 331; and v) Ram Singh v. Union of Territory, Chandigarh, 2003(2) RCC 164. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case offence was committed way back in 1985 and the petitioner has already suffered the rigours of trial for about 20 years. He then submits that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for 15 days when his sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 3.5.1989 and thereafter also there had been no complaint about the petitioner. The learned counsel then submits that the petitioner was of the age of about 19 years as is clear from the charge and he is not a previous convict. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel prays that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone. 4. The learned counsel then submits that the petitioner was of the age of about 19 years as is clear from the charge and he is not a previous convict. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel prays that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone. 4. The learned State counsel has, however, refuted the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contends that the petitioner does not deserve any leniency with regard to quantum of sentence. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that there is substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. In Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1789 , their Lordships of the Apex Court while upholding the conviction of the appellant in a case under the Act, reduced the sentence to the period already suffered by the appellant considering that the occurrence had taken place about eight years ago and no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant to jail for undergoing the remaining period of sentence. 7. Similarly in Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1482, the Honble Apex Court considering the fact that the appellant was released on bail long back and because of protracted litigation, he has suffered a lot of mental agony and taking into account the financial hardship and also considering the fact that he had already undergone imprisonment for some time (three weeks), the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone in the interest of justice. However, the fine imposed by the court below was increased. 8. In the present case, the petitioner was of the age of 19 years at the time of framing of charge. Admittedly, he is not a previous convict. By now he must have been assimilated in the mainstream of the society as a useful citizen and no useful purpose would be served if he is sent to jail in order to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. In my considered view, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the order of conviction is upheld and the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. The fine is, however, increased to Rs. In my considered view, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the order of conviction is upheld and the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. The fine is, however, increased to Rs. 3000/- as imposed by the learned trial Court. Ordered accordingly. 9. However, it is directed that the petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- within three months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy, in default, he will have to undergo imprisonment for three months. 10. At this stage, Mr. Balhara states that the petitioner might have deposited the fine of Rs. 3000/- before the trial Court itself at the time of filing of the appeal. If that is so, in that eventuality the petitioner need not deposit any enhanced amount of fine. 11. The present revision petition is consequently dismissed with the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above. Petition dismissed.