Partly allowed

Shiv Charan v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Mar 2010CRR/1441/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the conviction for selling adulterated mirchi powder. The High Court upheld the conviction and findings but, to meet ends of justice given prolonged incarceration, reduced the sentence and enhanced the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced; fine enhanced to Rs 7000 with direction to deposit within two months; rigorous imprisonment unaltered.

Shiv Charan Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

¶3

CrlRevn NO1441 of2003

1 0 0 I C0 I

Z U r I a5 00 2 Z

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶9

CrlaRevneNO1441 of2003 DATE OF DECISION March 082010

Shiv Charan

eeePETITIONER

State of Haryana

RESPONDENT

CORAM

HONBLE MRe JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL

¶17

PRESENT MrPSChauhan Advocate^as amicus curiae for^the petitioner

¶18

MrMunish Deswal General Haryanafor the

¶19

MOHINDER PAL Je

¶20

This^revision petition^{has beenflled} by petitionerShiv Charan againstthe dated 10072003 passedby the Additional SessionsJudgePanipatwherebyappealagainstthe of^convictlon orderdated 02 081999 and sentence order dated 03081999 passedbythe ChiefJudicial MagistratePanipatconvictingthe petitionerunder Section 16 ll6a9619read with Section 70f the Prevention of Food AdulterationAct 1954 6for short the Actl and him to undergo^rigorous iinprisoninentfor^a periodof six monthsand to pay^a fine ofRs10001 ln default whereof to undergofurther rigorousimprisonmentfor^a periodof

¶21

one month^was dismissed

¶22

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and are that integrity of this document on

¶23

. uma 2012.10.06 15: 12 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh

¶24

The facts of the case in brie

¶25

¶26

¶27

CrlRevn NO1441 of2003

1 1 0 0 0 I Z m C

08 OO n7 Z n

27 11991 TejaSingh Govemment Food InspectorPanipatwho^was by^DrPlCGandhi Medical Offlcer the business premisesof accused Shiv Charan at Panipat^Hewas found in of 10 kilogramsof Mirchi Powderⁱⁿ a Peepafor publicsale The Government Food Inspectorhad 600 grams of Mirchi Powder againstRs3 61 after disclosinghis identityand servinga^110tlce upon the accused After the Mirchi Powder it^was divided into three equalpartsand was putin three dry clean and emptybottles which were same tightly^The were an sealed properlyThereafter inttmation was sent to the Local Health AuthorityKarnal One samplewas sentto the Public AnalystHaryana for its analysis^The Public Analyst^{videreportExPE} opined^thatthe saInple^was found to be adulterated After receivingthe report of the Public Analystthe present coinplaint was instituted againstthe petitioner

¶32

On the basi^s of evidence adduced by the the accused^was chargedunder Section 166199 read with Section 70fthe Act He did not pleadguiltyto the chargeand clalmedtrial

¶33

In support of its case the prosecutionexamined GovernmentFood InspectorTejaSinghPH DrlKGandhi PW2 Ranl Singh^Clerk PW

¶34

In his statement recordedunder Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitlonerShiv Charan denied the prosecution allegationsand pleadedinnocence

¶35

No evidence^was led bythe petitionerin defence

¶36

JOYTI RANI 1 have heardthe learned counsel for the partiesand have 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

. uma 2012.10.06 15: 12 Scanned True Copy of Original gonePHHC,Chandigarhthroughthe recordsofthe^case

CL 0 0 I C5 I Z r I 08 QO 3 Z Qm

¶42

CrleRevneNO1441 of2003

¶43

ofMirchi Powder taken bythe GovernmentFood from accusedhiv Charan^was found adulteratedby the Public Analystwhich provedthat the sampIeof Mirchi Powder^was found to be adulterated^as the^same was containingnce starchand colour with added red oil soluble coaltar dyeThe provisionsof Section of^the Act were coinpliedwith in this case The accusedwhile being exaininedunder Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not taken the stand nor he ever informed the Court regarding norreceipt^{ofthereport ofthePublic} Analyst^{TheGovernmentFood} deposedthat as per provisionsof Section 13629of^the Act the copy^{oftheresult oftheLocalHealth} Authorityalong^with letter was sent through post^to the accused PW Ram SinghClerk speciflcallydeposed^{thattheaccusedwas} informed throughforwarding letter ExX and the postalreceiptin this regard¹ ExY Thus the accused cannot be said to have been on this score The prosecution^case has been by^{theevidenceof} 1ja Singh^the and DrPKGandhi Medical Ofcer Govemment Food Inspector6PH PW2l The salnplewas taken by the Govemment Food l nspectorTeja Singh00W in the presenceof DrPKGandhi oM The witnesses had no enmitywith the accused to falselyimplicatehim^lll this case The evidence producedby the clearlyproves^thatthe sample^ofMirchi Powder meant for publicsale was seized from the accused which was sent to the Public AnalystHaryana for analysis^{whovidereport} ExE found the^same adulterated^as mentioned

¶44

JOYTI RANI above. uma2012.10.06ln fact leamed counsel for the petitionercould not seriously 2016.03.28 16:21 15: 12 I attest to the accuracy and Scanned TrueCopy of Original integrity of this document challengePHHC,Chandigarhthe prosecutioncase duringthe course of argunlent^whichstands

¶45

¶46

¶47

Crlevn NO1441 of 2003

1 0 0 I C5 I er Z

0 I 08 oo m3 Z

provedon recorcl As such convictionof Shiv Charan under Section 16a9O9 read with Section 70f the Act as recordedbyboth the Courtsbelow^is maintained

¶52

However in view the factsand circumstancesof the^case the fact that Swordof Damocles has remainedhanging over the head of Shiv Charan for the last^more than case relatesto271 11 991 and the faced lncarceration for 718 daysafler his appealwas dismissedby the lower Court I anl of the consideredopinionthat ends ofjusticewill be met if the sentence awardedto the is reduced to the already by^{himandsentence} of^{flneisenhancedto} Rs0001^I order accordinglyby the sentence order The will deposit^the ainount of^ftne in^{the trialCourt} within^a periodof two monthsfrom the date of receiptof a certified copy of this order to say if^the petitionerfails^to comply^withthe direction of the amount of^fine of Rs0001 in the trial Court Within the above the sentence of rigorous as awarded by^{both the Courts belowshallremainunaltered}

¶53

With^{the above condltional modiflcationinthe sentence}

¶54

Orderthis petitionis dismissed

¶55

7
March 08 2010 1
Jt 1 JUDGE

¶56

. uma
2012.10.06
15: 12
Scanned True
Copy of OriginalPHHC,Chandigarh 1

¶57

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Shiv Charan v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Charan 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

Rajjal Vs State of Haryana

Gian Chand Vs State of Haryana

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bhupinder Singh Vs Ram Pal and Ors.

Gopal Chand Vs State of Haryana

Bishan Kamboj Vs State of Punjab