Harjeet Singh vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Shri Piara Lal, Food Inspector, Faridabad alongwith Doctor R.K. Sharma, inspected the premises of Harjit Singh petitioner on April 7, 1983 and found him in possession of 13 kilograms of cow''s milk for public sale. After serving a notice on Harjit Singh petitioner, the Food Inspector purchased 660 mililitres of cow''s milk for analysis. The milk purchased was divided into three equal parts and was sealed in three dry and clean bottles as per rules. One sample bottle was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis by a Railway Parcel in a sealed box. The Public Analyst reported that milk was adulterated as it was deficient to the extent of 91.5 per cent in like fat and 16.5 per cent in milk solids not fat of the minimum prescribed standard.

The petitioner was tried for an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad. The contention of the petitioner was that he was a tea vendor and he sold only tea and milk found in his possession was not for public sale but it was kept for preparation of tea. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ or in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Dissatisfied with this judgment dated November 6, 1985, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge (IV), Faridabad who maintained the conviction of the petitioner but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to a period of six months. Sentence of fine was maintained. It is against this judgment dated May 5, 1986 that the present Revision Petition has been filed.

I have heard Mr. H.S. Sethi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Kapoor, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner did not address any arguments assailing the conviction of the petitioner before me. His solitary contention was that speedy trial was the essence of justice and inordinate delay in disposal of a case itself caused sufficient agony to the petitioner. So, it was a fit case where he should not be sent to jail at this stage and sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period during which he remained confined. He contended that sample of milk from the petitioner was taken in the year, 1983 and more than 9 years have elapsed. The present Revision Petition is pending since, 1986 and this prolonged litigation itself is a ground for treating the petitioner in a lenient manner. In support of this contention the learned Counsel placed reliance on the case of Braham Dass v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988(II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Case 13. In this case it was observed 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 clause (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 the remaining 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."

I find that in the instant case the sentence awarded to the petitioner was modified in the year 1986 and thereafter he remained in jail for some time. For the last more than 9 years he faced this protracted litigation and had undergone sufficient mental harassment. So keeping in view the circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case where no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail at this stage for undergoing the remaining period of sentence.

As a result, I dismiss the appeal but limit the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. Sentence of fine however is maintained alongwith default sentence.