Manjit Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Nehra, J.

The petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, on 10101985. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, on 2471986. Hence, this revision petition.

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as under :

On 2561981 Dr. Harbir Singh Medical Officer, Incharge Rural Dispensary, Lalru, vested with the powers of Food Inspector under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, accompanied by Dr. Ravi Dutt Madan, visited the shop of Manjit Singh accused petitioner, situated in Katra Sahib Singh. Patiala. The accusedpetitioner was found present at his shop. Sixty creates of carbonated sweetened water (Tanja) were found in his possession at the shop meant for sale to the public. Dr. Harbir Singh disclosed his identity to the petitioner that he was the Food Inspector vested with the powers of seizing samples of foodstuff from the vendors and to have the same analysed and that he was there with a view to have the sample of sweetened carbonated water (Tanja) for having the same analysed from the public analyst. Expressing this intention on his part, he served notice Exhibit PA on Form VI on the petitioner and then purchased 9 bottles of sweetened carbonated water (Tanja) on payment of Rs. 21.75 paise. The petitioner gave him receipt Exhibit PB which was signed by him and attested by Dr. Ravi Dutt Madan in token of the supply of 9 bottles of sweetened carbonated water to Dr. Harbir Singh (Food Inspector). Dr. Harbir Singh then divided these 9 bottles into three lots consisting of three each. Each lot consisting of three bottles was wrapped in a strong thick paper and labelled. Paper slip of the Local Health Authority, bearing his signatures was pasted on the wrapper of each lot consisting of three bottles lengthwise covering the mouth and bottom of the container and joining its ends. It was then secured with a strong twine and sealed with the seal at four distinct places. Signatures of the accused was obtained in such a manner that it covered partly on the signatory slip and partly on the wrapper. Spot memo Exhibit PC was prepared, which was signed by Dr. Ravi Dutt Madan and the accused. On sample was sent to the Public Analyst Punjab, Chandigarh, alongwith the memo in Form VII and specimen impression of the seal used in sealing the sample in a sealed packet per special messenger Durga Singh, Peon of the office of the Local Health Authority Patiala in Form VII in a sealed packet. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, Punjab, (Exhibit PC), Dr. Harbir Singh instituted complaint Exhibit PF against the accused as, according to the report of the public Analyst, the contents of the sample contained small suspended matter and were contaminated with coliform bacteria. After instituting complaint Exhibit PF against the accused the Food Inspector informed the Local Health Authority about its institution. The Local Health Authority sent a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused under registered cover alongwith a forwarding letter, calling upon him to have the same reanalysed within 10 days of the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst if he so wanted.

With a view to sustain the charge against the accusedpetitioner, the prosecution relied upon the statements of PW1 Sohan Lal, Clerk in the office of the Local Health Authority, Patiala. PW2 Dr. Harbir Singh, Incharge Rural Dispensary, Lalru, and PW 3 Dr. Ravi Dutt Madan; besides affidavit Exhibit PG of Durga Singh, Peon in the office of the Local Health Authority.

The accusedpetitioner, when examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the imputations appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and stated that it is a false case. He examined DW1 Hargobind Singh, Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh in his defence.

Mr. H.S. Sawhney, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not address any argument for assailing the conviction of the petitioner. His solitary contention was that speedy trial was the essence of justice and the inordinate delay in the disposal of the case itself caused sufficient agony to the petitioner, so, it is a fit case where the petitioner should not be sent to jail at this stage and the sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period during which he remained confined in jail. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sample of sweetened carbonated water was taken on 2561981, i.e. more than 11 1/2 years back, that the present revision petition is pending since 1986, that the petitioner is on bail since 2971986 and that the prolonged litigation itself is a ground for treating the petitioner in a lenient manner.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court report as Braham Dass v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988(2) Recent Criminal Reports 184 : 1988(2) F.A.C. 13 , wherein it was held :

"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 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 antisocial offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Court should take strict view of such matter."

The sample was taken in the year 1981, i.e., more than 11 1/2 years back and the present revision petition is pending since 1986. Thus, the petitioner has faced this protracted litigation and has 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 imprisonment.

As a result, I partly allow this revision petition by limiting the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner to the period already undergone but his conviction and the sentence of fine along with its default clause are, however, maintained.