Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 974 (PNJ)

Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana

2010-02-23

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2010
JUDGMENT KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner Surender Kumar was prosecuted by Govt. Food Inspector, Charkhi Dadri. The Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 16(1)(a) (I) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The lower appellate Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence from one year to six months rigorous imprisonment. However, sentence of fine and default clause were maintained. Ram Saran, Govt. Food Inspector on 25th September, 1991 at about 12.30 p.m. inspected the premises of the present petitioner, who was running a grocery (Karyana) shop. During the inspection, the petitioner was found in possession of 20 kilogram of salt, which was contained in a plastic bag. The Govt. Food Inspector served a notice Ex.PA upon the petitioner and purchased 600 grams of salt after making payment of Rs.1.30. Receipt Ex.PB was obtained. The salt so purchased was divided into three equal parts and the samples were drawn in consonance with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. One of the samples was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. As per the report of Public Analyst, the sample was not in consonance with the standards prescribed. On receipt of the report of Public Analyst, a complaint was filed and a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner, on appearance, submitted a request for sending another sample to Central Food Laboratory, Mysore. The report of the Central Food Laboratory also stated the sample to be adulterated. It is now well settled that the report submitted by the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst. Prosecution examined Govt. Food Inspector Ram Saran as PW-1 and Dr. M.L. Gulshan as PW-2. Both the courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of witnesses and held the petitioner to be guilty of the offence. Ms. Rimplejeet Kaur, Advocate appearing for Mr. R.K. Gupta, counsel for the petitioner, has stated that in view of the findings of fact recorded by both the courts below that the testimony of PW-1 Ram Saran Govt. Both the courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of witnesses and held the petitioner to be guilty of the offence. Ms. Rimplejeet Kaur, Advocate appearing for Mr. R.K. Gupta, counsel for the petitioner, has stated that in view of the findings of fact recorded by both the courts below that the testimony of PW-1 Ram Saran Govt. Food Inspector and PW-2 Dr. M.L. Gulshan aspire confidence, she will not be able to assail the conviction of the petitioner. However, learned counsel has stated that in the present case, sample was drawn on 25th September, 1991. About 19 years are going to elapse and petitioner is in the corridors of the Court for the last two decades. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that the petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial. Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence awarded upon the petitioner. This Court has dealt with the entire case law and noticed the consistent view taken by this Court in ‘Lajpat Rai v. State of Haryana’ 2010(1) RCR Criminal 311. Therefore, in view of the ratio of law noticed in Lajpat Rai’s case (supra) and submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within three months from today, failing which the petitioner shall undergo the sentence awarded by the trial Court. With the modifications in sentence, noticed above, present revision petition is disposed of.