Sheo Ram vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Sheo Ram revision petitioner was tried and convicted for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jagadhari vide judgment dated 2.9.1986 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/. He was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, in case of default in payment of fine. Against this judgment recording his conviction Sheo Ram preferred an appeal which was partly accepted and sentence of imprisonment awarded to him was reduced to a period of six months by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala. Sheo Ram has now filed the present revision petition assailing his conviction.

The brief facts of the case are that on 30.5.1978 Government Food Inspector Harbhajan Singh accompanied by Dr. Manmohan Nagpal and Narinder Kumar PW was present near I.T.I. workshop Road, Yamuna Nagar when he intercepted the petitioner at about 9.30 P.M. who was carrying three drums containing about 40 kilograms of cows milk for sale on a cycle. After disclosing his identity the Food Inspector purchased 660 mililitres of cows milk for analysis. The sample so purchased was divided into three equal parts and was put into three dry and clean bottles. The bottles were sealed as per rules. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the sample was adulterated as it was deficient in milk fat to the extent of 37.5% and milk solids not fat 15% of the minimum prescribed standard.

The contention of the petitioner at trial was that milk was not for sale nor he ever worked as a milk vender. He was carrying the milk belonging to one Swaran Singh Lamba. In his defence he examined Shri S. S. Lamba as DW1.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not a milk vendor nor he was carrying the milk for sale. In fact the milk belonged to Mr. Lamba and he was taking it to his house. A reference was made to the statement of Mr. Lamba who appeared as DW 1 and stated that the petitioner was his servant and cultivated his land. He was taking the milk to his house. I find that evidence led in defence has been thoroughly discussed by both the Courts below and was rightly rejected. The petitioner was not consistent in his defence nor he ever contended that he was an employee of Mr. Lamba and was carrying milk in that capacity. Rather his contention was that the milk was handed over to him by the driver of Mr. Lamba as he himself was to go out. Earlier the suggestion given to Dr. B. M. Nagpal PW 2 was that in fact that milk was being carried for utilisation in some marriage and it was not meant for sale. In view of the varying stands taken by the petitioner no reliance was placed on the defence evidence and it was rightly discarded.

It was next urged that the facts and circumstances of the present case call for a lenient view in the sentence. The sample in the case was taken in the year 1978 and a period of 15 years has elapsed since then. This revision petition is pending for the last about eight years and the petitioner has already faced sufficient harassment and mental torture, so he may not be sent to jail at this stage and his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. This contention of the learned counsel seems valid. The petitioner has faced the agony of a trial which remained pending for 15 years and no useful purpose will be served by sending him to jail after such a long period. I, therefore, partly allow this revision petition and while maintaining conviction of the petitioner reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine along with its default clause is maintained.