Subhash Chander vs State of Haryana

Mahavir Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard.

The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ''the Act''), vide judgment/order dated 04.03.2013 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali (for short-trial Court).

Judgment/order dated 04.03.2013 was challenged by the petitioner by way of Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 15.03.2013, which after contest, has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa (for short-appellate Court), vide judgment dated 06.03.2014.

To assail the correctness of judgments dated 04.03.2013 and 06.03.2014, the petitioner by filing the present petition, has invoked the provisions of Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (''Cr.P.C. for short), which, the State is contesting.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has very candidly conceded that he has nothing to say as regards correctness of findings of conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned appellate Court. He, however, prays for a lenient view as regards quantum of sentence. It is submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner is 58 years old and has a wife, children and mother to look after apart from the fact that the petitioner has no pre or past criminal history except the incident in question. It is also pointed out that out of substantive sentence of six months awarded to him by the trial Court, the petitioner has spent 3 months, approximately, in custody and this fact has not been disputed by learned State counsel.

In view of the above, the petitioner deserves lenient view as regards sentence, more so because he has been facing ordeal of criminal complaint, trial and consequent proceedings since 2007.

Consequently, while maintaining the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, order of quantum of sentence is modified and substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already spent by him in custody. Sentence as regards fine and default clause is, however, maintained.

With above modification in the order on quantum of sentence, the revision petition fails and is dismissed.