Manoj Kumar vs State of Haryana

K.K. Srivastava, J.

Heard Mr. H.S. Gill, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist Manoj Kumar and Mr. Surinder Lamba learned AAG for the State of Haryanarespondent. The revisionist Manoj Kumar was tried in the court of Sh. B. Diwakar, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short to be referred as Act) in case No. 164/2 dated 18.11.1993. The charge brought against the revisionist was about the adulteration of milk of cow which was stored in about 20 bottles and was displayed for public sale. These bottles were stored in refrigerator.

On facts a sample was drawn according to the rules by the Food Inspector and the same, after analysis, was found to be adulterated. A complaint was duly filed after obtaining due sanction of the relevant authority and the revisionist was put on trial on the charge under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Learned Magistrate found the prosecution evidence sufficient to convict the revisionist of the charge punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The revisionist Manoj Kumar challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1996, which came up for hearing before Additional Sessions Judge (I), Faridabad on 10.9.1997. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the learned Magistrate had rightly held the appellant guilty under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and further noticed that since the minimum sentence prescribed for the commission of the offence had already been awarded no cause for showing further leniency arose and in the result the appeal was dismissed.

Feeling aggrieved, Manoj Kumar has now filed this revision and has challenged the correctness of the judgments of the courts below. However, when this revision came up for motion hearing on 24.10.1997, the revision was confined only with regard to the quantum of sentence. Notice was accordingly issued for the said limited purpose of sentence to the Advocate General, Haryana. Upon service of notice Mr. Surinder Lamba, learned AAG for the State of Haryana has put in appearance.

Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate for revisionist contended that the revisionist deserves to be dealt with leniently on three grounds which, according to him, were adequate for allowing the sentence to be still reduced further from the minimum sentence awarded under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. These facts and circumstances, in short, were:

(i) The revisionist Manoj Kumar faced the agony of trial for a period of more than four years,

(ii) The revisionist lost his father on 12.10.97 when he had already been lodged in jail for serving out the sentence aforesaid, and lastly

(iii) It was contended that upon his conviction and sentence ordered on 10.9.1997, Manoj Kumar has already undergone more than two and a half months'' sentence.

In support of his argument Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in Harbans Lal v. State of Haryana, 1989 Vol. (1) RCR 171 . A learned Single Judge of this Court while accepting the plea of reduction of sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment on the grounds mentioned therein, which included the sufferance of the agony of the trial for more than four years and the revisionist having undergone sentence of one month, placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in case of Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1988 S.C. 1789 : 1988(2) RCR 184. The other authority which has been cited in support of the aforesaid contention is Des Raj v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR 689 . The learned Single Judge of this Court while accepting the plea of reduction of the minimum sentence provided under Section 16 of the Act observed as under :

"Keeping a person in suspended animation for 8 years or more without any case at all cannot be with the spirit of the procedure established by law. It is correct that although minimum sentence to be imposed upon a convict is prescribed by the statute yet keeping in view the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role and convict can be compensated for the mental agony which he undergoes on account of protracted trial due to the fault of the prosecution by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction."

The learned Single Judge also placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Braham Dass case (supra). In view of the settled position of law regarding the consideration of a plea of the revisionist to let him off for, the sentence already undergone which is of a duration of less than minimum of the sentence prescribed under Section 16 of the Act and, further in view of the facts and circumstances of this case which have already been narrated here, I find myself in complete agreement with a decision rendered by this Court and respectfully follow the decision of the apex Court rendered in case of Braham Dass (supra).

Resultantly, this revision is partly accepted. While the conviction of the revisionist is maintained under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, the substantive sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone. The sentence regarding the fine, however, remain the same and is maintained.

Revision partly allowed.