Chandgi Ram vs State of Haryana

Sabina, J.—Chandgi Ram-petitioner was convicted for an offence u/s 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 vide judgment dated 16.4.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar. Vide order dated 17.4.2001 he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide judgment dated 29.4.2005. Hence, the present revision petition.

Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:

Brief facts of the case are that Food Inspector Sh. Shiv Dayal, Hisar filed a complaint against the accused on the allegations that on 26.7.1993 at 8.00 p.m he alongwith Dr. P.K. Gupta intercepted accused Chandgi Ram, who was having in his possession in a drum. The Food Inspector disclosed his identify and demanded a sample of cow milk by giving him notice in writing on form VI prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and then purchased 750 mls. cow milk from the accused, after mixing the whole contents properly and made it uniform for analysis for paying a sum of Rs. 5.25 paisa. The sample was duly divided into three equal parts and was bottled in three dry clean empty bottles and was sealed as per rule by the complainant. One sealed bottle along with a memorandum in Form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed packet through registered post on 27.7.1993. The other two sealed bottles of sample along with two copies of memo in form VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Hisar. A copy of the memorandum in form VII and a specimen impressions of seals, the seal, the sampler and packet were sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana Chandigarh separately by registered post vide post office receipt No. 320 dated 26.7.1993. On the report of public analyst the sample contains milk fat is 90% deficient and milk solid not fat is 2% deficient of the minimum prescribed standards under the PFA Rules, 1955. The accused was informed of the said analysis and the complainant accordingly filed the present complaint against the accused in the Court. The accused was accordingly summoned and the trial court vide its order dated 6.4.1995 opted to try the complaint as warrant case.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment and has prayed that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. In support of his arguments learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Risala v. State of Haryana, (O&H) 2008(2) RCR (Cri) 239, wherein it was held that since the petitioner had suffered protracted trial of 24 years, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence as already undergone. However, the sentence of fine was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-.

There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was a previous convict. The sample of milk was drawn on 26.7.1993. Since then the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings.

Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment is reduced to already undergone by him and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months. Non deposit of fine shall render this revision petition as dismissed. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed of.