Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 614 (PNJ)

Surjit Singh v. State (Chandigarh U. T. )

2005-05-18

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2005
Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. In this criminal revision petition, the petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 5.1.1991 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentenced under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was dismissed. 2. As per the facts of the prosecution case, on 11.7.1985 Vireshwar Singh, Government Food Inspector had apprehended the petitioner in Sector 29, Chandigarh while he was in possession of 20 kgs. of cows milk for sale in a drum. The Food Inspector purchased 660 ml. milk from the petitioner, after giving him due notice as per rules. The purchased milk was divided into three equal parts and put in three bottles and each sample bottle was sealed. It was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and it was found to be adulterated. It was found that fat elements were more, while the solid not fat was less than the prescribed. Accordingly, the complaint was filed against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner denied the charge. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Vireshwar Singh, Food Inspector as PW-1 and Surinder Kumar, Senior Clerk of the office of Local Health Authority as PW-2. 5. In his statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner claimed to be innocent and pleaded false implication. He also examined Kapur Singh as DW-1, Sarwan Singh as DW-2, Bhagi Dutt as DW-3, Sarwan Kumar as DW-4 and Krishan Dev as DW-5. 6. On the basis of this evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for having committed offence punishable under 16(1)(a)(i) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, vide judgment dated 30.10.1987. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay the fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months. 7. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on 5.1.1991. Hence the present revision petition. 8. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction. 9. Otherwise also, I have gone through the statements of the witnesses as also the judgments recorded by both the Courts below. Hence the present revision petition. 8. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction. 9. Otherwise also, I have gone through the statements of the witnesses as also the judgments recorded by both the Courts below. I find that the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for committing offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is upheld. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, prays for leniency in sentence. It was submitted that the offence was committed by the petitioner on 11.7.1985. The matter remained pending in the learned trial Court for about 2 years and he was convicted on 30.10.1987. The appeal filed by the petitioner also remained pending in the Lower Appellate Court for more than two years and his appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on 5.1.1991. The matter is also pending in this Court for the last more than 15 years. 11. It was further submitted that the petitioner was 50 years of age at the time of commission of offence and now he has become very old and is at the fag end of his life. It is further submitted that he has already undergone 16 days of sentence and has also deposited the amount of fine. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment reported as Haripada Dass v. State of West Bengal and another, AIR 1999 SC 1482. 12. After considering these facts, I am inclined to hold that calling upon the petitioner to undergo the remaining part of his sentence would amount to miscarriage of justice. The petitioner has already undergone 16 days imprisonment and he has also deposited the amount of fine. He has faced prolonged trial for about 20 years. Therefore, this punishment is sufficient to bring him on the path of reformation. The ends of justice have been met. 13. Therefore, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. 14. The petition is partly allowed.