The revision petition challenging conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was dismissed. The High Court upheld conviction but reduced imprisonment to time served and enhanced the fine.
Imprisonment reduced to time served; fine enhanced to Rs. 5000/- payable within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.Revn. NO.183 of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Revn. NO.183 of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: 04.03.2010
Darshan Singh
...PETITIONER
VS.
State of Haryana
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
PRESENT: Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.
MOHINDER PAL, J.(Oral)
Petitioner Darshan Singh was convicted by the trial Court under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition.
At the time of arguments, comprehending that the case of the prosecution against the petitioner stood proved beyond all shadows of
Crl.Revn. NO.183 of 2003
2
reasonable doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the conviction. However, he stated that keeping in view the facts that the occurrence relates to 15.03.1995; that the petitioner was sentenced on 17.02.2003 by the trial Court and his appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 12.01.2004; that he remained incarcerated for two months after his appeal was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court; and that Sword of Damocles had remained hanging over his head for more than fifteen years, lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence.
Consequently, conviction of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act is maintained. However, keeping in view the facts stated above, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in sending the petitioner to jail again at this stage. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.5000/-. I order accordingly by modifying the sentence order. The petitioner will deposit the amount of fine in the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say, if the petitioner fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine of Rs.5,000/- in the trial Court within the period stipulated above, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment as awarded by both the Courts below shall remain unaltered.
With the above conditional modification in the sentence order, this petition is dismissed.
March 04, 2010 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether sentence enhancement is warranted despite long incarceration.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Darshan Singh
State of Haryana
MOHINDER PAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
