Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1102 (PNJ)

Sektu Ram v. State of Haryana

2008-05-26

RAJESH BINDAL

body2008
JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal, J 1. The challenge in the present petition filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. is to the judgment dated March 18, 2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated January 18, 2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra was dismissed. 2. The petitioner in the present case was held guilty under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act'). The allegations are that on June 27, 1995 at 10.00 AM the petitioner was intercepted while in possession of cow milk for sale. Sample was drawn. On analysis, the same was found to be adulterated as milk fat was found to be deficient by 5% and milk solid not fat was 35% deficient of the minimum prescribed standards. The petitioner was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo Revision No. 671 of 2008 -2further simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. The judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. 3. At the time of issuing notice of motion, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his prayer for release of the petitioner on probation, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had faced protracted trial for 12 long years and that he is a milk vendor. 4. When confronted with provision of Section 20-AA of the Act, where there is specific bar to application of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for considering reduction of the sentence awarded to the petitioner. The submission is that the petitioner is a senior citizen. Out of six months sentence awarded to him, he has already undergone about two months actual imprisonment. Reliance has been placed upon Gurdev Singh V. U.T. Chandigarh, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 121 (P & H). 5. Section 20-AA of the Act specifically debars the application of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to a person convicted for an offence under the Act unless the person is under 18 years of age. 6. Criminal jurisprudence is not only to bring peace, discipline and harmony in the society but also to give opportunity to individuals to reform themselves. 5. Section 20-AA of the Act specifically debars the application of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to a person convicted for an offence under the Act unless the person is under 18 years of age. 6. Criminal jurisprudence is not only to bring peace, discipline and harmony in the society but also to give opportunity to individuals to reform themselves. The petitioner in the present case has learnt lesson of his life. He has faced trial for a period of 12 years as complaint was filed against him on September 20, 1995. He has suffered imprisonment for a period of about two months. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh V. State (Delhi Admn.), 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. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such a 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. 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 Municipal Corporation of Delhi V. Tek Chand Bhatia, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 360 considering the case under the Act, Hon'ble the Supreme Court keeping in view the mitigating circumstances where the offence was committed 11 years ago and the accused was senior citizen, the court refrained from passing substantive sentence for imprisonment and only imposed fine. The relevant passage is extracted below:- “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 the 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 Dhanraj's 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.” 9. To similar effect is the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Braham Dass V. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988(2) RCR (Criminal) 184 (SC), the relevant para thereof is extracted below:- “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 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. The occurrence took place about more than 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 the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the Court should take strict view of such matter.” 10. In Haripada Das V. State of West Bengal and another, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1482 Hon'ble the Supreme Court keeping in view the circumstances where the offence was committed long back and the accused therein had suffered imprisonment for some time, reduced the period of imprisonment already undergone. Para 6 thereof can be referred to, which is extracted below:- “This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated mustard oil. Although in the samples drawn by the Food Inspector, no impurity or objects injurious to health could be detected but it was found that the saponification value exceeded marginally than the prescribed limit and the B.R. reading also exceeded marginally than the prescribed limit. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellant was released on bail by this Court long back and because of the protracted litigation up to this Court he has also suffered a lot of mental agony and also financial hardship and also considering the fact that he had already undergone imprisonment for more than three weeks, we feel that in the facts of the case the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. We, however, direct that besides the fine imposed by the Courts below, the appellant will have to pay a fine Rs.5,000/-within four weeks from today, in default he will have to undergo imprisonment for three months. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. The bail bonds stand discharged.” 11. This court in Chander Bhan V. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR (Criminal) 125 while considering the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India opined as under:- “Now it cannot be disputed that the right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished right guaranteed under the Constitution. The bail bonds stand discharged.” 11. This court in Chander Bhan V. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR (Criminal) 125 while considering the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India opined as under:- “Now it cannot be disputed that the right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished right guaranteed under the Constitution. Fundamental rights were not a teasing illusions to be mocked at. These were meant to be enforced and made a reality. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the social interest also, does not make it any-the-less the right of the accused. Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. This is how, the court shall understand this right and have gone to the extent of quashing the prosecution after such inordinate delay in concluding the trial of an accused keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Keeping a person in suspended animation for 10 years or more without any case at all cannot be with the spirit of the procedure established by law. 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 undergoes on account of protracted trial due to the fault of the prosecution by this court in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction.” 12. Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and also the fact that the offence in the present case was committed 12 years back, the petitioner has faced the agony of trial since then; he has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about two months; he is not a previous convict and even thereafter has not been involved in any such case; he has already learnt lesson of his life, accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for reducing the quantum of sentence deserves acceptance. 13. For the reasons mentioned above in my considered opinion, the ends of justice in the present case would be met if the order of conviction is upheld and the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. However, in addition to the fine imposed by the court below, the petitioner shall deposit additional sum of Rs.5,000/-as fine. The same shall be deposited within four weeks from today and in case of failure, the petitioner will have to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months. 14. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner be released from the jail forthwith. The petition is disposed of accordingly.