Bhalle Ram vs State of Haryana

Viney Mittal, J.—The petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the judgment dated October 7, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby the appeal filed by him against the judgment dated September 4, 1992 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad was dismissed and the conviction of the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- was upheld.

As per the prosecution, on November 28, 1989 Teja Singh, Government Food Inspector in the presence of Dr. S.P. Mamani of Govt. Hospital while present near the court compound at Fatehabad intercepted the petitoner Bhalle Ram carrying 20 kgs of cow''s milk contained in a drum and being transported for the sale on a Viki - Moped. The sample of the aforesaid milk was taken and after analysis the same was found to be adulterated. Accordingly, the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector. After the prosecution led its evidence, the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Judge as aforesaid. The appeal filed by the petitoner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. Now, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid judgments of the learned Courts below.

I have heard Shri B.R. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitoner and Shri Rajbir Sehrawat, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the record.

As far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned, the prosecution had led cogent evidence to show that the petitioner was in fact in possession of the adulterated milk. Teja Singh, Food Inspector has appeared as PW1 and supported the prosecution story as given in the complaint Ex. PG. His testimony has further been supported by the statement of PW Dr. S.P. Mamani in whose presence the aforesaid sample was taken from the petitioner. The testimony of PW Dr. S.P. Mamani also supports the prosecution version. Nothing has been pointed out before me to show that the prosecution version suffers from any infirmity or that the judgements of the learned Courts below are in any manner improper. In this view of the matter, the conviction of the petitoner as recorded by the learned Courts below is upheld.

Faced with this situation, Shri B.R. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case the petitioner was found to be in possession of adulterated milk on November 28, 1989 i.e. about more than 13 years back. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitoner that the petitioner was granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated November 23, 1995 and thereafter the petitioner has not been involved in the commission of any criminal offence. Shri Gupta further submits that since the petitioner has already suffered long and protracted criminal proceedings, therefore, a lenient view of the matter be taken with regard to the sentence imposed upon the petitioner and the petitioner be granted the concession of probation.

I find that the prayer made by Shri B.R. Gupta is very just and fair. Although, there is minimum sentence provided under the provisions of the Act but it has been held by this Court in the case of Jog Dhian v. State of Haryana 2001(2) Chanidgarh Criminal Cases (HC) 54 that even in a case where there is minimum sentence provided, still a person can be granted the benefit of probation. It is not disputed that in the present case, the petitioner was found in possession of adulterated cow milk. A period of more than 13 years has since elapsed. The petitioner has already suffered long and protracted criminal proceedings. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated November 23, 1995. It is not shown that the petitioner after the concession of bail granted to him has ever misused the same. In these circumstances, while maintaining the order of conviction, I set aside the order of sentence and order that the petitioner shall be released on probation. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on probation on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad with an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear and receive sentence during the said period if and when called upon to do so.

With the above modification, the present petition is disposed of.