Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 386 (PNJ)

Sanjay Kumar Bansal v. State Of Haryana

2009-02-25

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
Judgment 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 23-1-2002, rendered by the Court of Additional sessions Judge, Panipat, vide which it dismissed the appeal, against the judgment of conviction dated 28-10-1999 and the order of sentence dated 29-10-1999, rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, panipat, convicting the accused, for the offence punishable under Sec.16 (1) (a) (i)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to be as the act only) and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for a period of six months, and to pay a fine of rs.1000.00 , in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 29-11-1994 at about 9.05 p. m. , Mr. J. S. Chauhan, government Food Inspector, inspected the shop of the accused, and found him in possession of 4 Kgs. of buffalo milk curd for public sale, in a receptacle (Kunda ). He demanded a sample of the curd, after giving the requisite notice, in writing, on the prescribed form, to the accused and purchased 750 grams of buffalo milk curd from him, after mixing the entire quantity of curd lying with him and making it homogenous. The sample was divided into three equal parts and then put in the bottles.18 drops of formalin 40% were added, as preservative, in each bottle. The sample bottles were separately labelled, in accordance with the provisions of law. One portion of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, chandigarh, and two portions of the sample, along with two copies of Form VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority, panipat. The Public Analyst, Haryana, found the sample to be adulterated, as the same was 75% deficient, in milk fat. After receipt of the copy of the result, from the Local health Authority, Panipat, complaint against the accused was filed. 3. On his appearance, the accused was supplied the copies of complaint and other relevant documents, under the provisions of law. 4. In pre-charge evidence, J. S. Chauhan, government Food Inspector, (PW-1) was examined. Thereafter, the pre-charge evidence was closed. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the pre-charge evidence, the trial Court found that a primafacie case was made out, for the offence punishable under Sec.16 (1) (a) (i) of the act, against the accused. 4. In pre-charge evidence, J. S. Chauhan, government Food Inspector, (PW-1) was examined. Thereafter, the pre-charge evidence was closed. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the pre-charge evidence, the trial Court found that a primafacie case was made out, for the offence punishable under Sec.16 (1) (a) (i) of the act, against the accused. Accordingly, charge was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 6. In the after-charge evidence, J. S. Chauhan, Government Food Inspector, was re-called for further cross-examination. Ram singh, Clerk, appeared as PW-2, and Dr. V. K. Malhotra, appeared as PW-3. Thereafter, the after-charge evidence was closed, by the prosecution. 7. The statement of the accused, under sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence. 8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore. 9. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the accused-appellant, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 23-1-2002, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. 10. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision petition was filed. 11. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 12. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, did not challenge the conviction, recorded by the trial Court. Even otherwise, he could not successfully challenge the conviction, recorded by the Appellate Court. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the courts below, that the guilt of the accused was proved, are based on the cogent, convincing, reliable and trust-worthy evidence of J. S. Chauhan, Government Food Inspector, complainant, (PW-1), Ram Singh, Clerk, office of the Local Health Authority, PW-2, and Dr. V. K. Malhotra, PW-3, who was accompanying J. S. Chauhan, PW-1, at the relevant time, as also the report Ex. PD of the Public Analyst, which came to the conclusion, that the sample of curd of buffalo milk, which was taken on the relevant day, was found to be adulterated, as milk fat was 75% deficient of the minimum prescribed standards. PD of the Public Analyst, which came to the conclusion, that the sample of curd of buffalo milk, which was taken on the relevant day, was found to be adulterated, as milk fat was 75% deficient of the minimum prescribed standards. It is settled principle of law, that the Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, can not revaluate and re-appreciate the evidence, produced by the prosecution, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the findings recorded by the Courts below, were in any way perverse or illegal or based on misreading of evidence. In the instant case, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, that the accused committed the offence under Sec.16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, are neither perverse nor illegal. Under these circumstances, no ground, whatsoever, is made out to interfere with the judgment of conviction, recorded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court. The same are liable to be upheld. 13. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner has been facing the criminal proceedings since 29-11-1994 i. e. for the last more than 14 years, and the sentence awarded to him, be reduced. It may be stated here, that by selling the adulterated buffalo milk curd, the revision-petitioner, played with the valuable lives of the people. He did so just for monetary gain. Under these circumstances, no ground, whatsoever, is made out for the reduction of sentence, awarded to him, by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court. No doubt, reliance was placed by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner on Des Raj V/s. State of Haryana, 1996 (1) RCR (Criminal) 689 : (1996 Cri LJ 2720 (Pandh)); manoj Kumar V/s. State of Haryana, 1998 (1) RCR (Criminal) 563, and Mahavir V/s. State through Govt. Food Inspector, 2000 (4) RCR (Criminal) 208, in which the sentence, awarded to the revision-petitioner was reduced. These cases were decided, on the peculiar facts and circumstances, prevailing therein. No help, therefore, can be drawn, from these cases, by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner. The sentence, awarded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court, is the minimum, prescribed for the offence and, as such, is commensurate with the guilt of the accused. It cannot be said to be disproportionate, in any manner. No ground, therefore, is made out, for the reduction thereof. The sentence, awarded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court, is the minimum, prescribed for the offence and, as such, is commensurate with the guilt of the accused. It cannot be said to be disproportionate, in any manner. No ground, therefore, is made out, for the reduction thereof. The order of sentence, rendered by the Courts below, also deserves to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall comply with the judgment, in compliance with law, promptly. Petition dismissed.