Pawan Kumar vs State of Haryana

A.S. Nehra, J.

Petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 16(1) (a)(1) 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 one month by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Ambala on 8.9.1986; hence this revision petition.

Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows

On 11.1.1979 at 2.30 P.M., Sh. R.C. Chopra, Government Food Inspector (hereinafter referred to as Inspector) accompanied by Dr. M.K. Kaushal, Medical Officer, visited the Karyana shop of Siri Ram situated at Barwala. Siri Ram was found in possession of about 40 bags of Krishna Brand salt contained in polythene bags of 700 grams each for public sale. The Inspector disclosed his identity and served notice Ex. P.A. upon Siri Ram. Thereafter he purchased three bags of salt for analysis on payment of Rs. 1.20 P. vide receipt Ex. P.B. Karnali Singh, PW, was also associated. The said bags were put into three dry and clean packets, which were then stoppered, labeled and wrapped in a thick khaki paper, twinned with thread and scaled with the seal of the doctor and the Inspector. A paper slip issued by the Local Health Authority was pasted on each packet. Thumb impressions of Siri Ram were obtained in such a manner that the same partly appeared on the paper slip and partly on the outer cover of the packet. One such sealed packet alongwith the memo in form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana through Sadhu Ram S.S.K. from the office of civil hospital, Kalka. Remaining two bags alongwith two copies of memos in form VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority. A copy of the memo in form VII was sent to the Public Analyst separately through the same messenger. Spot memo Ex. P.C. was prepared which was attested by Siri Ram and the PWs.

A report of the Public Analyst Ex. P.G. was received declaring the sample as adulterated i.e. it was found that the sample gave iodine as potassium iodate 71.2 PPM against the prescribed standard of 25 PPM.

While taking sample Siri Ram accused had produced bill Ex. P.D. showing the purchase of salt from Pawan Kumar Aggarwal. Consequently, notice under Section 14 of the Act was sent to Pawan Kumar Aggarwal who did not send any reply. Thus, the complaint Ex.P.H. was filed by the Inspector against both the accused. Copy of the report of the public analyst was also supplied to both of them, vide letter Ex. P.C.

On notice issued. both the accused appeared. Thereafter, Sh. R.C. Chopra, Food Inspector appeared as P.W. I and reiterated the facts as stated above.

The accused Shri Ram filed an application for getting the second sample analysed. Consequently, the second sample packet was sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory who in his report Ex. P.Y. declared the sample as adulterated.

After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court found that Siri Ram accused had purchased the salt under a warranty from Pawan Kumar Aggarwal accused and so Siri Ram accused was discharged. Finding a prima facie case under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act against Pawan Kumar accused, he was charged accordingly who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

Pawan Kumaraccused was provided the right to recorssexamine the witness who utilised this opportunity. Thereafter Dr. M.K. Kaushal appeared as P.W.2 and fully supported the version of the doctor. Dr. Rajinder Sharma was examined as P.W. 3 who proved forwarding later Ex. P.G. vide which the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the two accused. Postal receipt Ex. P.1 was also produced. Vide letter Ex.P.L. the report of the Public Analyst was sent to Pawan Kumar Aggarwal accused and its postal receipt Ex. P.Y. was proved. The prosecution also tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. P.X. and Karnail P.W. was given up as having been won over by the accused.

Accused Pawan Kumar Aggarwal, when examined under Section 313 CrPC denied the allegations levelled against him. He stated that this is a false case. Accused pleaded to produce defence but later on he declined to do so.

Mr. H.N. Mehtani, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not address any argument to assail the conviction of the petitioner before me. His solitary contention was that speedy trial was the essence of justice and inordinate delay in disposal of the case itself caused sufficient agony to the petitioner; so, it was a fit case where he 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. His contention is that the sample of salt was taken on 11.1. 1979 and more than 14 years have elapsed. He has further submitted that the present revision petition is pending since 1986; that the petitioner is on bail and that the prolonged litigation itself is a ground for treating the petitioner in a lenient manner. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Braham Dass Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988(2), Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases, 13.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, I hold that for the last more than 14 years, 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 sentence.

As a result, I maintain the conviction of the petitioner but limit the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine, however, is maintained alongwith its default clause.