Partly allowed

Tej Pal v. State Ofhy.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Sept 2010CRR/2498/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner, convicted of possessing adulterated milk, qualifies for probation under the Probation of Offenders Act due to the low quantum of offence, significant delay in sentencing, and lack of bad antecedents, though he must deposit litigation costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, subject to conditions; directed to deposit Rs.20,000 costs.

Tej Pal Vs State Ofhy. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Revision No.2498 of 2003 Date of Decision 22.09.2010

Tej Pal

...... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...... Respondent

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

¶9

Present: Mr.Rahul Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

A.N.JINDAL, J:

¶13

Assailed in this petition is to the judgment dated 06.12.2003, passed by the Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal of the petitioneraccused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 19/20.11.1999, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 16(1)(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 30 litres of adulterated cow's milk, contained in two drums, for public sale. Sample was drawn after making it homogenous and thereafter put into three dry and clean bottles and necessary preservative was also added. The bottles were properly wrapped, stoppered and sealed with the seal of Local Health Authority and one bottle was sent for public analysis. On receipt of the report of public analyst to the effect that the milk so purchased was not to the prescribed standards as laid down under the rules, complaint was filed against the petitioner. After recording the preliminary evidence, notice of accusation was issued to him to which he denied as incorrect. The complainant led further evidence and the petitioner was also provided opportunity to further cross-examine the witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Opportunity to lead defence was also given.

¶15

The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed.

¶16

Criminal Revision No.2498 of 2003

¶17

-2-

¶18

Heard. Sufficient evidence has been led in order to establish the charge against the petitioner. The evidence, on the basis of which findings of fact have been returned by the Courts below, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence.

¶19

It has been urged that the fat is marginally high i.e. 6% as against 4.5% whereas milk solids not fat are marginally low. The occurrence in this case took place on 25.03.1989. The sword of sentence remained hanging over his head for the last 21 years. He has already undergone about eleven days of the substantive sentence and no such bad antecedents have been brought on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. It has also been informed that the accused was not actually taking the milk for personal use. Under these peculiar circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence.

¶20

Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that the petitioner be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar, for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he would serve the sentence as and when called for. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/-, as costs of litigation within three months from today, failing which, this petition shall be treated as dismissed in toto.

¶21

Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar, for compliance.

¶22

(A.N.Jindal) Judge

¶23

22.09.2010 mamta-II

Tej Pal v. State Ofhy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Pal v. State Ofhy.

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

Ramanpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mehar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Raghav Gomber Vs Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra and Anr.

Neeraj Kumar Dhaka Vs Union of India an Dors.

General Manager, Haryana Roadways Hisar Vs Prem Singh and Anr.

Ishwar Dayal Vs P.O., Labour Court, Ambala & Ors.