Partly allowed

Suresh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2010CRR/505/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

-court reduced the substantive sentence of the shopkeeper convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to the period already undergone, enhancing the fine by Rs.10,000/- to avoid sending him behind bars again.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence reduced to time already undergone; fine enhanced by Rs.10,000/- payable within three months, else two months simple imprisonment.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 505 of 2003 Date of Decision : September 09, 2010

Suresh Kumar

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

.....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶9

Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.S.Chahal, Advocate

¶10

Mr. Ravish Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana

¶11

T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

¶12

The petitioner stands convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

¶13

According to the prosecution, sample of sugar was taken from the petitioner on 17.1.1996 when he was running a tea stall near Bajaj Biscuit Factory, Fatehabad. The Public Analyst found the sample of sugar to be containing 9 PPM iron fillings. On an objection raised by the petitioner, the second sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory, Pune, as per which the same was found misbranded being containing

¶14

Crl. Revision No. 505 of 2003 -2-

¶15

sulphur dioxide more than permissible limits.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of his client. However, he has submitted that the petitioner is a petty shopkeeper. He has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about fifteen years. He is not a previous offender. Of late, he has gone blind. Out of the sentence of six months imposed upon him, he has already undergone a period of 1½ months besides depositing the fine imposed upon him by the trial Court. Therefore, the substantive sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone by him.

¶17

Learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence as he was found in possession of misbranded sugar as it contained sulphur dioxide beyond the permissible limits. However, he has placed on record the custody certificate, as per which the petitioner has undergone an actual sentence of one month and fourteen days.

¶18

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, and that too, after the expiry of a period of 7½ years since the time he was released on bail by this Court. Ends of justice would be amply met in case his substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him.

¶19

Crl. Revision No. 505 of 2003 -3-

¶20

Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced by Rs.10,000/-, which be deposited by him with the trial Court within three months from today, failing which he shall be required to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

¶21

The revision is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶22

( T.P.S. MANN ) September 09, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1

Suresh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh 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

Salwinder Singh Vs Jaswant Singh and Ors.

(O&M) State of Punjab etc. Vs Bhupinder Singh etc.

State of Punjab Vs Kamal Jeet Kaur

(O&M) Jagar Singh Vs State of Punjab

(O&M) Tara Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab

(O&M) Tara Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab