Behari Lal vs State of (U.T) Chandigarh

Mehtab S. Gill, J.

Through this Criminal Revision, the petitioner calls in question the judgment/order dated October 23, 1986 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh whereby he was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default of a payment of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. The appeal filed by the accusedpetitioner against his conviction and sentence did not meet with any success.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 28.2.1984, Shri M.K. Sharma, Government Food Inspector, P.W. 1 inspected the shop of accused in Sector 14, Chandigarh and found the accused in possession of 10 kilograms of cow''s milk for sale. After doing the necessary formalities, sample of milk was taken and the Public Analyst vide report Exhibit PD found the same to be adulterated. On the application of the accused, another sample bottle was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Chandigarh who vide his certificate Exhibit PF also found the same to be adulterated.

The accused was prosecuted and ultimately convicted and sentenced, as noticed above.

No one has appeared to make endeavours to convince me to disbelieve the statements of prosecution witnesses. I have myself scrutinised the evidence and the judgments of the Courts below and find no infirmity in the same. I am of the considered view that the conviction of the petitioner is impeccable. Therefore, the same is confirmed.

Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that the person found guilty of the offence shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. The proviso further provides that in cases covered by Clauses (i) and (ii) to Section 15(1) of the Act, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, the Court may impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years and with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of India creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. It is now well settled that the right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Right to speedy trial following from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial.

In Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 125, it has been held by this Court as under :

"It is correct that although minimum sentence to be imposed upon a convict is prescribed by the statute yet keeping in view the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony which he undergoes on account of a protracted trial due to the fault of the prosecution by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction."

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 380, the Apex Court held as under :

"Though adulteration of an article of food is a serious antisocial offence which must be visited with exemplary punishment, it will be rather harsh to pass a sentence of imprisonment in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Under Section 16 as in force at the material time, the Court had the discretion for special and adequate reasons under proviso to subsection (1) of Section 16 not to pass a sentence of imprisonment. In the instant case, the accused is a man aged 75 years. The offence was committed more than 11 years ago. The order of acquittal was based on the decision of the High Court. The samples were taken from sealed tins. These are mitigating circumstances. Accordingly, instead of passing a substantive sentence of imprisonment, the accused could be sentenced to period already undergone and directed to pay a fine."

In Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988(4) SCC 130, the Supreme Court held as under :

"Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant had been acquitted by the trial Court and the High Court while reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the appellate Judge has not made clear reference to clauses (f). The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing period of the sentence, though ordinarily in an antisocial offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the court should take strict view of such matter.

While dismissing the appeal, we would, however, limit the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and sustain the fine along with the default sentence."

All the three cases cited above were under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

The mitigating circumstance in this case is that the petitioner is undergoing the agony of this protracted trial for the last more than 15 years and he can be compensated suitably by reducing the substance sentence imposed upon by him to the one already undergone by him.

For the foregoing reasons I reduce the substantive sentence of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine shall remain unaltered.

The Criminal Revision stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.

The petitioner shall stand discharged from bail bonds and surety bonds, if any.