Sat Narain vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is a Criminal Revision filed by one Sat Narain against the order dated November 19, 1998 of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby he dismissed his appeal against the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Hisar convicting him under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ or in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on May 26, 1990, Government Food Inspector was present near double crossing Hisar in connection with seizing of samples of food stuff from their vendors. At that time, Dr. S.K. Naval, Medical Officer was also present. Sat Narain (accused) came with a drum containing 20 kilograms of cow milk which was for sale to the public. Shri Teja Singh disclosed his intention to seize sample of milk from him with a view to get the same analysed from Public Analyst, Haryana. He manifested this intention to the accused through notice Exhibit PA. Thereafter he purchased 250 mls. of milk from him on payment of Rs. 3/. The accused gave him receipt Exhibit PB. The Government Food Inspector divided that milk into three equal parts. He put each of those parts in three dry, clean and employ bottles. He put two drops of fomalin of 40% strength in 25 mls of milk in each of the bottles. The bottles were stoppered tightly and sealed with the seal of Dr. S.K. Naval. Bottles were lebelled and wrapped in strong thick paper, the ends of which were pasted with gum. Paper slip bearing the code number and the signatures of local health authorities was wrapped on each bottle from top to bottom. Bottles were sealed with the seal of Food Inspector and the seal of Dr. S.K. Naval. Signatures of the accused were obtained on the bottles in a manner that half of the signatures appeared on the paper slip and half on the wrapper of the bottles. One sealed bottle alongwith memo on form VII in a sealed packet was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis. One copy of the memo on form VII bearing seal impression of the seal used was sent to the Public Analyst through post separately. Two sealed bottles alongwith two copies of memos on form VII bearing seal impression were deposited in a sealed packed with the local Health Authority Hisar for analysis. The Public Analyst found the sample adulterated inasmuch as it was found deficient in milk fat and in milk solids not fat to the extent of 19% of the standards of purity in cow milk as laid down in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

Accused was charged under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate found charge under Section under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act proved against the accused. He accordingly convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, vide order dated September 4, 1995. The accused''s appeal to the Court of Session met with failure. The accused has not lost heart on account of his conviction by the two Courts below and has come up in Revision to this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence that before milk was purchased, the same was properly stirred and homogenized. Shri Teja Singh, Government Food Inspector and Dr. S.K. Naval have stated that milk was properly stirred and homogenized before the same was taken. Even otherwise, if milk had not been properly stirred and homogenized, milk not would have been deficient both in milk fat contents and milk solids not fat content. It would have been deficient only in milk solids not fat content. In this case, milk was found deficient both in fat content and in milk solids not fat content. Deficiency in both the constituents of milk cannot be attributed to absence of stirring of milk and making it homogeneous.

It was further submitted that milk was not meant for sale. It was meant for use in the house of Bhola Ram D.W.1 for a religious purpose. This argument was raised before the both Courts below and was rejected for reasons which are cogent and tenable. The learned Magistrate justifiably found the charge proved against the accused. I do not find any flaw in the assessment of evidence by the learned Magistrate. Similarly, I do not find any flaw in the reassessment of evidence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. The learned Courts below went quite deep into the points raised by the defence in the case and decided them. Decision of the learned Courts below on those points is unassailable. This Revision was, thus, dismissed, so far as conviction is concerned, by order dated December 1, 1998. Notice was issued to Advocate General Haryana only regarding sentence.

With regard to sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been facing this trial since the year 1990. He remained in trial before the Magistrate for five years. After protracted trial of five years, the learned Magistrate convicted him. Thereafter, he went in appeal to the Court of Session and his fate hanged in balance before the Court of Session for about three years when unfortunately his appeal was dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the duty of the Court to assure the accused speedy trial. If the Court is not able to assure the accused speedy trial the court should at least show some consideration in the matter of sentence on account of his having faced the vagaries of criminal trial for about eight years. It was submitted that right of speedy trial is the basic right of the accused given to him by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

In my opinion, some consideration should be shown to the accused in the matter of sentence keeping in view that this trial has been hanging on his head like democles sword for eight years. So, the sentence imposed upon him is slashed and brought down to three months rigorous imprisonment but the sentence of fine shall remain intact. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner will undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

Subject to this reduction in sentence, this Revision fails and is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.