Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3527 (PNJ)

Neel Kamal Narender Mohan v. State Of Haryana

2006-09-12

T.P.S.MANN

body2006
Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. The petitioner was convicted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, rohtak under Sec.16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 5.10.2005. Vide order dated 7.10.2005, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000. The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence by filing the appeal, which has been disposed of by Additional sessions Judge, Rohtak on 6.7.2006 by maintaining the conviction of the petitioner and reducing the sentence of imprisonment to nine months. The present revision has thereafter been filed by the petitioner, wherein notice was issued regarding quantum of sentence only. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sample of sweetened carbonated water was taken on 13.4.2002. The petitioner thereafter faced the agony of trial for a period of another nine months. The petitioner was taken into custody on 6.7.2006, when his appeal was dismissed by additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the only fault committed by the petitioner was that he had not put labels on the bottles which contained sweetened carbonated water and accordingly, the ingredients were not made known to the public. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner violated the provisions of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules as the sweetened carbonated water was not labelled and further that the sample contained saccharine sodium. 4. Though, the Act prescribes imposition of a minimum sentence of six months vet on account of the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than two months and that he had been facing the agony of trial and appeal for the last more than four years, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to that already undergone by him. 5. In Sher Singh V/s. State of U. T. Chandigarh this Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone even when the offence prescribed minimum sentence of six months under the act. It was held as under: "11. No doubt, minimum sentence, to be inflicted, is provided for an offence under the Act. 5. In Sher Singh V/s. State of U. T. Chandigarh this Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone even when the offence prescribed minimum sentence of six months under the act. It was held as under: "11. No doubt, minimum sentence, to be inflicted, is provided for an offence under the Act. However, keeping in view the 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. " 6. In Sat Pal V/s. State of Haryana* this court once again reduced the sentence to the one already undergone while exercising the powers under Article 21 of the Constitution which gave the right of speedy trial to the accused. 7. In Braham Dass V/s. State ofhimachal pradesh3 the Honble Apex Court did not find it appropriate to send the accused back to jail as the accused had already undergone some imprisonment and the occurrence had taken place eight years back. It was held as under: "5. 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 antisocial offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration act the Court should take strict view of such matter. " 8. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by reducing the sentence of imprisonment from nine months to the one already undergone by the petitioner. Revision disposed of accordingly.