The High Court reviewed a conviction for food adulteration. While maintaining the conviction, it granted leniency regarding the period of imprisonment already served and enhanced the fine to Rs.30,000.
Sentence modified to credit time already served; fine enhanced to Rs.30,000 payable within three 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.820 of 2003
Date of decision: February 18, 2010
Sham Lal
.. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana
.. Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. G.S. Sawhney, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent.
A.N. Jindal, J
Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 4.4.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 20.12.1997 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein referred as 'the Act').
The allegations in brief are that on 25.4.1993, at about 12.20 p.m. C.L. Sekri Government Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. T.D. Chandana intercepted the accused in the area near work shop road, Yamuna Nagar, who was having 20 liters of skimmed milk contained in the drum for public sale. After serving notice Ex.PA upon the accused, C.L. Sekri, purchased 750 mls of the skimmed milk against payment of Rs.2.20. The sample was divided into three equal parts and put into three dry, clean and empty bottles. Two drops of 40% formaline per 25 ml were added as preservatives in each bottle. After following the procedure, one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst Haryana Chandigarh for analysis and as per report Ex.PD, the sample was deficient by 14% in milk solids not fat of the minimum prescribed standards. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, a complaint Ex.PE was filed against the accused in the court and he was summoned to face trial for the offence under Section 7 read with
-2-
Criminal Revision No.820 of 2003
Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act.
After recording pre-charge evidence, the accused was charged under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined C.L. Sekri (PW1), Dr. T.D. Chandana (PW2) and Roop Chand MPHW/Clerk O/o L.H.A. Yamuna Nagar (PW3).
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. However, no evidence was led in defence.
The trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused.
At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he being the first offender and having already undergone about two months of the substantive sentence must be extended some leniency.
Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained.
Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1993 and the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. He has already undergone about two months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him.
Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by him. However, fine is enhanced to Rs.30,000/- to be paid within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto.
February 18, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves leniency given that he is a first offender and has already undergone two months of the substantive sentence.
Whether the fine imposed should be enhanced in the circumstances of the case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sham Lal
State of Haryana
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
