Islam vs State of Haryana

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

This revision petition has been filed by Islam (hereinafter described as the petitioner) after his appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that on 22.5.1988 Ajmer Singh, Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. V.K. Jain were present at the BusStand, Palwal. The petitioner came on a motorcycle carrying milk in 5 drums. He was intercepted. There was about 80 kgs. of milk contained in the drums meant for sale to the public.

Food Inspector Ajmer Singh disclosed his identity and expressed his desire to take a sample of milk. One Sanjay Kumar who was present, was joined as a witness. A notice was served upon the petitioner. The Food Inspector purchased 750 ml. of buffalo milk as a sample against payment of Rs. 3.75p. A memo was prepared in this regard at the spot. The milk was divided into three parts in three 3 clean bottles. Formalise was added as preservative in each bottle and the bottles were stoppered tightly and sealed with the seal of the Medical Officer. They were labelled and wrapped in strong thick paper and the ends of paper were pasted with gum. A paper slip bearing code number and signature of Local Health Authority was pasted on each bottle from top to bottom.

Each bottle was then secured by means of strong twine and sealed with the seal of Medical Officer and the Food Inspector. Signatures of the accused were obtained. One sealed bottle alongwith a memo in FormVII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana and the other two sealed bottles of the sample alongwith two copies of memo in Form VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority on 23.5.1988 in a sealed packet. According to the report of the Public Analyst, the sample milk contained fat which were deficient. On these brief facts, the petitioner was prosecuted.

The learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, vide his judgment dated 24.3.1993, held that the petitioner has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts, to be guilty for contravening the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the said Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 15.3.1994.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset asserted that the samples have not been taken in a proper manner because according to him, the contents were not mixed up and consequently, the milk so purchased cannot be said to be true representative of the milk carried by the petitioner. It has been recorded by both the courts below that the milk was stirred as stated by Ajmer Singh, Food Inspector who appeared as P.W. 1. I find no reason to disagree with the said finding arrived at and in concluding that the argument so advanced must fail.

The main stay of the argument of the petitioner''s learned counsel was that his client has already undergone about 21/2 months imprisonment and, therefore, the sentence in the facts of the case, may be reduced to the one already undergone. To buttress his argument, he referred to certain precedents.

in the case of Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1723, deficiency in the fat contents was 4%. The accused was 70 years of age suffering from Asthama. In this background, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. Subsequently, in the case of Nand Lal v. State of Haryana, 1992(1) Recent Criminal Reports 82, where the accused was 65 years old and faced trial for 11 years, once again, H.K. Sandhu, J. felt that it is appropriate that the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. Similar view prevailed in the case of Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994(1) Recent Criminal Reports 161, but herein too, the accused had undergone a prolonged litigation and taking stock of the facts, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

What weans the facts of the present petition from the other cases is that the petitioner is not so old so as to make a ground that the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone. Judicial compassion can play a role but not as in the facts of the present case. There is no inordinate delay in the peculiar facts of the present case, nor the age of the petitioner comes to his rescue. Already the courts below have taken a very reasonable view in awarding the sentence. I find no reason to interfere. For these reasons, this revision petition, being without merit, fails and is dismissed.