Partly allowed

Dharam Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Sept 2010CRR/2036/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. However, it reduced the sentence from one year imprisonment to three months and enhanced the fine to Rs.20,000 due to the delayed proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced from one year to three months imprisonment; fine enhanced from Rs.2,000 to Rs.20,000.

Dharam Singh Vs State of Haryana — Medical Negligence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Revision No.2036 of 2003 Date of Decision 24.09.2010

Dharam Singh

...... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...... Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

¶9

Present: Mr.G.S.Sawhney, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

¶11

¶12

A.N.JINDAL, J:

¶13

This petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.09.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Panchkula, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 22/23.07.2003, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 7 read with Section 16(i) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity 'the Act').

¶14

The allegations against the petitioner are that he was found having in his possession 5 kgs of cow milk, contained in a drumi, for public sale. On receipt of the report of public analyst to the effect that the milk, so purchased, was not according to the prescribed standards as laid down under the rules, complaint was filed against him. After recording the preliminary evidence, notice was issued to the petitioner to which he denied as incorrect. The complainant led further evidence and the petitioner was also provided opportunity to further cross-examine the witnesses. He was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Opportunity to lead defence was also given.

¶15

Criminal Revision No.2036 of 2003 -2-

¶16

On trial, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed.

¶17

Without assailing the judgment of conviction, some leniency on the quantum of sentence has been sought.

¶18

Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was found or detected in the conduct of trial or procedure, which may result into miscarriage of justice or failure of justice, therefore, the findings returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage.

¶19

Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1990. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings for such a long time in various Courts. He has already undergone one month and eight days of the substantive sentence. Under these peculiar circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to reduce the sentence to some extent.

¶20

Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence,which is reduced to three months. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- which would be paid by the petitioner within three months from today, failing which, he would serve the remaining part of sentence as awarded by the Courts below

¶21

Copy of the order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate,

¶22

Panchkula, for compliance.

¶23

24.09.2010 mamta-II

Dharam Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam 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

Balbir Singh Vs Karnail Singh and Ors.

(O&M) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Jaunati & Ors.

(O&M) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Jasbir Singh and Ors.

National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Laxmi Kant and Ors.

(O&M) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rani and Ors.

Haryana Financial Corporation Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax,Haryana