Krishan Kumar vs State (U.T. Chandigarh)

Baldev Singh, J.—Krishan Kumar (petitioner) has filed this revision petition against the judgment dated July, 5, 1990, passed by Mr.Babu Ram Gupta, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.

Mr.G.C.Suman, the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, vide judgment dated August 7, 1989, had convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') and had sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

The Id. Additional Sessions Judge, on appeal, had maintained the judgment of conviction, but reduced the sentence from rigorous imprisonment for one year to rigorous imprisonment for six months, keeping the sentence of fine and its default clause intact.

Mr.O.P.Gautam, the then Food Inspector, Union Territory, Chandigarh, on October 22, 1986, found the petitioner in possession of twenty kilograms mixed milk for sale. Sample was taken out and, on analysis, it was found deficient in milk fat by 7.0% and in milk solids not fat by 11% of the minimum prescribed standard. Hence, the complaint was filed u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act.

The Id. counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgments of conviction passed by the courts below. He argued that the petitioner is suffering from the agony of this case since October 22, 1986, when the sample was taken from him and keeping in view that he has faced protracted trial for more than eighteen years, he be released on probation of good conduct. The Id.counsel for the petitioner cited the case of Hardwari Lal v. State of Haryana, 2003 (1) RCR (Cri.) 10. The sample in this case was taken nineteen years back. The sentence was reduced to already undergone. It was observed that minimum punishment of six months has been provided under the Act. However, if an accused suffers mental agony of prolonged trial, then he can be compensated in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He also cited the case of Gurdev Singh v. U.T.Chandigarh, 2003 (1) RCR (Cri.) 121. In this case, the accused was convicted under the Act. He had faced the agony of trial for eighteen years. Sentence was reduced to already undergone keeping in view right of the accused of speedy trial under Article 21 of Constitution of India. It was laid down in the case of Ram Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2003 (1) RCR (Cri.) 242 that though minimum sentence is prescribed under the Act, still benefit of probation can be given to an accused when he has faced trial for eighteen years. The case of Suraj Bhan v. State of Haryana, 2003(1) RCR (Cri.)332 was also referred to. Conviction was recorded u/s 16(1)(a) of the Act. The accused had faced trial for seventeen years. Sentence was reduced to already undergone. In a recent judgment of our High Court in the case of Ramesh Chand alias Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2005(1) CCC 481 (P&H) : 2005(1) RCR (Cr.) 332, conviction of the accused was kept intact, but keeping in view that he faced protracted trial for eighteen years, he was given the benefit of probation, even though minimum sentence has been prescribed under the Act. All these authorities squarely apply to the case in hand.

The accused-petitioner is a petty milk vendor. The ends of justice will be met if he is released on probation of good conduct under the Probation of Offenders Act. The judgment of conviction is therefore maintained, but the order of sentence is modified to the extent that he would be released on probation on his furnishing the requisite bonds for a period of one year in the trial Court within a period of fortnight from the date he receives certified copy of this judgment.

This revision petition is partly allowed in the manner indicated above.