Dismissed

Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Mar 2009CRR/572/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the criminal revision petition maintaining the conviction for food adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, but modified the sentence by allowing the period already undergone by the petitioner and enhanced the fine to Rs. 20,000.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed with modification to the sentence to credit the time already undergone and enhancement of the fine to Rs. 20,000.

Raghubir Singh Vs State of Haryana — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Crl. Revision No. 572 of 2003

¶3

Date of decision: March 05, 2009

Raghbir Singh

... Petitioner

vs.

State of Haryana

... Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal

¶10

Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rajat Goyal, AAG, Haryana for the respondent.

¶11

A.N. Jindal, J

¶12

Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 7.3.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, dismissing the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner Raghbir Kumar (herein referred to as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 25.9.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 7 (1) (a) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein referred as 'the Act').

¶13

The factual matrix of the case is that on 31.5.1992, at about 6.00 a.m. Ram Singh, Government Food Inspector (herein referred as 'the complainant') accompanied by Dr. Gyanendra Sharma intercepted the petitioner who was having 80 kgs of cow milk in his possession for public sale. After serving notice on the prescribed form, the complainant purchased 750 mls of milk for Rs.4.50. He divided the same into three equal parts and put in the three dry cleaned empty bottles. Two drops of 40% formalin were added as preservative in each bottle. He sent one sealed bottle along with memorandum in Form VII to the Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh and deposited the

¶14

-2-

¶15

Crl. Revision No. 572 of 2003

¶16

¶17

remaining two samples with the Local Health Authority, Ambala. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, Haryana Chandigarh that the milk fat was 32% deficient of the minimum prescribed standards under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, a complaint was filed in the Court. Thereafter, on the application moved by the petitioner the second sample was sent to Directorate Central Food Laboratory, Mysore for analysis who also reported that the sample did not conform to the standards as laid down for cow's milk under the provisions of the Act and Rules thereof and the Milk fat contents fell below the minimum specified limit of 4.0%.

¶18

After recording pre-charge evidence, he was charged under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution led evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed.

¶19

Arguments heard. Record perused.

¶20

Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is a first offender and has already undergone five months out of the substantive sentence. He further prayed for taking some lenient view on the quantum of sentence.

¶21

Having examined the impugned judgment, the same is shorn of any irregularity or illegality resulting into miscarriage of justice. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the accused. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained.

¶22

-3-

¶23

Crl. Revision No. 572 of 2003

¶24

¶25

As regards quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1992 and the petitioner has suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. He has already undergone five months out of the substantive sentence. As such, I deem it a fit case where some leniency could be extended to the petitioner.

¶26

Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that as already undergone by him. However, the fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- which shall be paid within three months failing which the petition would be treated as dismissed in toto.

¶27

Copy of the judgment be sent the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala.

¶28

March 05, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge

Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M)Kuldeep Singh Dhillon Vs Preetinder Kaur Thind

(O&M)Karam Singh Vs Ms.Shashi Kala Benvait and Anr.

Yaqub Masih Vs Shashi Kala

Sham Lal Vs State of Haryana

Lilu Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Ganga Singh Vs State of Hy.