Krishan vs State of Haryana

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present revision petition has been filed after loosing the battle before the two courts below. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi vide its judgment dated 5.9.2000 to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- failing which he shall have to further undergo RI for one month for an offence punishable u/s 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, an appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar was filed, which was also dismissed on 22.11.2005.

Although learned counsel for the petitioner has raised his arguments on merit but ultimately he has restricted his prayer qua to the quantum of sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has already undergone more than three and a half months of actual sentence against the total sentence of six months and he is not a habitual offender. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has faced the agony of trial since the lodging of complaint i.e. 16.12.1993 and no other case of similar nature is pending against him. He has a large family to support, whereas, he is having limited sources of income to support his family. To support his argument, he has also relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Nand Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, and of this Court in Jagdish Vs. State of Haryana 2012(2) RCR (Criminal) 229.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents available on the file.

This Court had earlier considered the provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act so far as its prescribing minimum sentence for a period of six months. Reference was made to the cases of Ganesh Maity Vs. U.T., Chandigarh, 2003(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 418, Krishan Kumar Vs. State (U.T. Chandigarh), and Surjit Singh Vs. State (Chandigarh U.T.), where it is viewed that though minimum sentence is prescribed under the Act, yet the same can be reduced considering the long pendency of such proceedings. Following such precedents, this Court in Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (in Criminal Revision No. 378 of 1993) decided on 3.7.2007, has observed as under:-

Would not this reveal violation of his life and liberty guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law, says Article 21 of the Constitution. This, Article, earlier construed narrowly as guaranteed against execution action unsupported by law has now been given new dimensions by the Courts to say that it would impose limitation upon law making as well. Thus to pass the test of being a valid law/validly legislated law, it has to be a reasonable, just an fair as well as in addition to be being a validly legislated law. Assurance of a fair trial and a speedy conclusion of criminal trial is now recognized as part of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reference here can be made to Hussainara Khatoon and Others Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, and Kadra Pahadiya and others Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1982 SC 1167. Seen in this context, delay in disposal of criminal prosecution, which in the present case is nearly 27 years, would certainly be a valid consideration for passing any order in regard to the sentence in the present case. Such a course was adopted in the case of Ganesh Maity (supra). In the case of Krishan Kumar (supra), the accused was directed to be released on probation, though he was of 19 years of age, considering the fact that he had faced trial for 19 years. Similarly, in the case of Surjit Singh (supra), the sentence awarded to the accused u/s 16 of the Act was reduced to a period already undergone on the ground that the accused had faced trial for nearly 20 years.

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that the petitioner does not want to contest conviction in case the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone as well as keeping in view the ends of justice; also the fact that the petitioner has faced the agony of trial for the last approximately 21 years, the present revision petition is disposed of while upholding the conviction of the petitioner and sentence awarded to the petitioner is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine shall remain the same. The petitioner is on bail as the sentence imposed upon him has already been suspended by this Court vide order dated 20.2.2006.

With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the present revision petition is disposed of.