Ram Kishan vs State of Haryana

Bakhshish Kaur, J.

Ram Kishan was convicted and sentenced under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for two months.

The allegations were that on August 20, 1988, at about 2.40 p.m., petitioner was found in possession of 10 (ten) Kg. of cow milk for sale. Sample was taken by the Government Food Inspector Tek Ram after disclosing his identity, which, according to rules, was sent to the Public Analyst. On receipt of the report, an intimation as per Section 13 clause 2 of the Food Adulteration Act was sent to the accused. The complaint was filed and charge for the offence mentioned above under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was framed against the petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The trial Court considered the offence on record and convicted and sentenced the petitioner as above. Mr. Gorakh Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument to the question of sentence only. He submitted that the sample was taken about 11 years ago. The trial in the trial Court consumed about 1011 years. In similar circumstances, courts have taken lenient view and the sentence was reduced below the minimum prescribed under the Act. To meet this argument, Mr. Ashwani Verma, learned State counsel, submitted that the law has prescribed the minimum punishment. Therefore, there is no room for reduction of the sentence further.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and objections raised by the learned State Counsel. It cannot be disputed that the right of speedy and expeditious trial is one of the valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. In Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCC 57, which is somewhat similar to the facts of the case in hand, the sentence was reduced to the period of sentence already undergone, as the accused had already faced the agony of protracted prosecution and suffered harassment for a long period of ten years. It was also observed therein that the Fundamental Rights are not the teasing illusions 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 of India creates a right in the accused to be tried expeditiously, right to speedy trial is the right of accused. My attention was also drawn to Sat Narain v. State of Haryana, 1990(2) RCR(Criminal) 88 and Satpal v. State of Haryana, 1997(4) RCR(Criminal) 15 on the question of reduction of sentence.

In view of circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has faced the agony of protracted trial for 1011 years and that (expeditious) trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed by the Constitution, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced from six months to three months, but the sentence of fine shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence, the revision petition stands disposed of.