Puran Lal vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 22nd June 1989 at about 3.00 p.m. the business premises of the accused were inspected by Food Inspector Daya Kishan who was accompanied by Dr. J.M Gandhi. It was a tea shop situated opposite bus stand, Palwal. At the time of inspection of the premises, 7 litres of mixed milk was found lying in an aluminium container at the shop. It was meant for sale to the public. It was boiled milk. Food Inspector disclosed his intention to the accused to seize sample of milk from him with a view to have the same analysed from the Public Analyst, Haryana. He gave him notice on Form No. VI. He purchased 750 mls. of mixed milk from him on payment of Rs. 6/ to him vide receipt exhibit PB. Before the sample milk was purchased, he had thoroughly stirred the milk and made it homogeneous and uniform. Food Inspector divided the milk so purchased in three equal parts. He put each part in a separate, dry and clean bottle. He added two drops of formalin in each bottle as preservative. He then stoppered each of the bottles tightly and then sealed them. Bottles were labelled and wrapped in strong thick paper with gum. A paper slip bearing the code number and signatures of the Local Health Authority was pasted on each bottle from top to bottom. Each bottle was secured by means of strong twine and sealed with the seal of Medical Officer and Food Inspector at the spot. Thumb impression of Puran Lal, accused, was obtained in a manner that part of the thumb impression of the accused remained on the paper slip and part on the wrapper of the bottle.

One sealed bottle along with a memorandum in Form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, for analysis in a sealed packet through Railway Parcel. The other two sealed bottles of sample along with two copies of memo in Form VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority on 23.6.89 in a sealed package. Copy of the memorandum in Form VII and specimen impression of the seal used in sealing the sample and the packet were sent separately to the Public Analyst, Haryana, through registered post. At the time when sample was drawn, one N.K. Jindal was also present.

The report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample was not conforming to the standards of purity laid down for mixed milk in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, inasmuch as, the sample milk was found to contain milk fat to the extent of 2.2% against the minimum prescribed limit of 4.5% and further, the milk solids not fat was found to contain 8.0% as against the minimum prescribed limit of 8.5%. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, one copy thereof was sent to the accused by registered post along with a forwarding letter by the Local Health Authority. As the sample milk was found adulterated, Food Inspector instituted a complaint under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

On the conclusion of the trial, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, found the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, proved against the accused vide order dated 21st April, 1997. Vide order dated 22.4.97, he sentenced the accused to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for 1 months.

Aggrieved from this order dated 21/22.4.97 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, convicting and sentencing the accused, the accused went in appeal to the Court of Sessions. Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, did not find any merit in the appeal. He, accordingly, dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused by the Learned Magistrate.

Conviction of the accused by the two Courts below has not dampened his spirits. He has knocked the door of this Court through this Revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been no compliance with the provisions of Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1954 by the Food Inspector inasmuch as he has not placed on record the original postal receipt to show the despatch of the sample seal to the Public Analyst and along with Form VII. Suffice it to say, the report of the Public Analyst shows that it was the sample which was received by him and analysed by him bearing the seal impression sent to him.

It was next submitted that the case should have been tried summarily whereas the case was tried as a warrant case instituted on complaint. It was submitted that the trial of this case summarily is mandatory in view of the provisions of Section 16(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Suffice it to say, the trial of the accused in accordance with the procedure laid down for trial of warrant cases instituted on complaint afforded him greater assurance and protection. In a warrant case instituted on complaint, the accused gets two opportunities to crossexamine the PWs. Crossexamining PWs twice afforded the accused greater protection and assurance. If he was tried summarily, he would not have had the opportunity to crossexamine the PWs twice over.

It was next submitted that copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not sent to the accused which is violation of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. If copy of the report had been sent to him, he would have got the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Suffice it to say, he never made such a request to the Court. If he had made such a request to the Court, the Court would have accepted his request or if the Court had rejected his request, the Court would have stated that he had not applied for reanalysis of the sample within 10 days of the receipt of the report of Public Analyst by him.

It was next submitted that the milk was not properly stirred before sample was drawn. Suffice it to say, if the milk had not been properly stirred, the milk fat content would have been higher and milk solids not fat contnxt would have been lower. Whereas in this case, the milk fat was lower and milk solids not fat was also lower.

I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the appraisal of evidence by the learned Magistrate. Similarly, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the reappraisal of evidence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In my opinion, the accused was justifiably convicted by the learned Magistrate and his appeal was justifiably dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Revision was dismissed, so far as conviction is concerned, at the motion hearing. Notice was issued to the State only in regard to sentence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sentence imposed should be slashed, inasmuch as the accused faced the agony of trial before the learned Magistrate for about eight years. After he had faced trial for about eight years before the learned Magistrate, he was convicted. He tried his luck before the Court of Sessions. His luck hanged in the balance for about one year before the Court of Sessions when eventually, his appeal was dismissed. He has, thus, been suffering the vagaries of criminal trial for the last nine years. It is the right of the accused to have speedy trial. Right to speedy trial flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the Court is not able to assure speedy trial to the accused, the Court should at least take into account the mental pain and agony which he suffered during the protracted trial while awarding sentence. In support of the submission, he drew my attention to Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 125 where it was held that "rights to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished right guaranteed under the Constitution. Fundamental rights were not a teasing illusion to be mocked at. These were meant to be enforced and made a reality. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the social interest also, does not make it anytheless the right of the accused. Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial appeal, revision and retrial. This is how, the court shall understand this right and have gone to the extent of quashing the prosecution after such inordinate delay in concluding the trial of an accused keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Keeping a person in suspended animation of 10 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 a 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."

Keeping in view that in this case the accused has suffered mental pain and agony for over eight years, I feel that the sentence imposed should be slashed. It is, accordingly, slashed and is brought down to R.I. for 3 months. The fine imposed upon him shall remain intact. In default of payment of fine, he may undergo further R.I. for 1 month. Subject to this reduction in sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.