Tej Ram vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

Prosecution case is brief is that on 25.7.1985 Shri Amar Nath Sharma, Govt. Food Inspector intercepted accused at busstand, Naraingarh. At that time, Dr. Ramesh Kumar Medical Officer, was also with him. Accused was carrying with him 90 litres of cow milk in three drums. That milk was meant for sale to the public. Shri Amar Nath Sharma gave his identity to the accused that he was Food Inspector authorised to seize sample of the foodstuff which was meant for sale to the public from their vendors and to have the same analysed from the Public Analyst. After serving notice Ex.PA on the accused, he got the milk thoroughly mixed and made homogeneous. He purchased 660 mls. of milk from the accused on payment of Rs. 2/ to him vide receipt Ex.PB. He divided that milk into three equal parts and put each of those parts in dry and clean bottle. 18 drops of formalin were added in each of sample bottle as preservative. Bottles were labelled, stoppered and securely fastened and wrapped in strong thick paper which was secured by means of a strong twine. Bottles were made into sealed parcels in compliance with the procedure laid down in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 for drawing sample for getting it analysed. One sealed sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh in sealed cover. A copy of form VII alongwith the railway receipt was also despatched to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh separately by registered post. Remaining two sample bottles alongwith copy of memo form No. VII was deposited with the Local Health Authority in a sealed cover.

Public Analyst found the sample to be deficient in milk fact content to the extent of 47.5% of the minimum prescribed standard. After receipt of the report of Public Analyst complaint was filed against the accused under Section 16(1)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

After trial, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala found the charge 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 one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months vide order dated 2.4.1997. His appeal to the Court of Sessions failed altogether. Learned Sessions Judge, Ambala dismissed his appeal vide order dated 12.9.1998.

Still not satisfied, Tej Ramaccused (petitioner herein) has come in revision to this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Food Inspector did not make the milk homogeneous before drawing the sample. Suffice it to say, if there had been improper sampling, sample milk would have recorded deficiency in milk solid not fat content. It would not have recorded deficiency in milk fat content.

It was next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no compliance of the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act. Suffice it to say, the drawing of sample has been supported by the Food Inspector and Dr. Ramesh Kumar. Why should they have deposed against the accused falsely ? There is no animus suggested so far as they are concerned.

It was next submitted that the milk was not meant for sale. Accused was not a milkvendor. He was only an agriculturist and was carrying milk for use in the marriage of his niece. Suffice it to say, no body carries milk in such drums in which milk is usually carried by the milkvendors. If he were to carry milk for the use in the marriage of his niece, he would have carried milk in some other utensils and not in drums.

In my opinion, learned Magistrate justifiably found the charge proved against the accused. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the appreciation of evidence by the Magistrate. On reappraisal of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge felt that the accused was justifiably convicted by the learned Magistrate. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the manner in which learned Sessions Judge has reappraised evidence. So the revision is dismissed so far as conviction is concerned.

Faced with this position, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sample is alleged to have been taken from the accused on 25.7.1985. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala found him guilty of the charge under Section 16(1)(i)(a) read with Section 7 of the Act after a protracted trial of almost 12 years. Vagaries of this criminal trial hanged on his head for about 12 years when he was before the learned Magistrate. After he had been convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate, he sought to try his luck before the Sessions Judge, Ambala. His luck hanged in the balance for about 11/4 years before the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala. He has, thus, been facing the vagaries of criminal trial for the last about 13 years. During this period, he has suffered a lot of mental pain and agony. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the duty of the Court is to assure to the accused speedy trial. Right of the accused to speedy trial flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the court is not able to assure to the accused speedy trial, Court should atleast show him some consideration in the matter of sentence. In support of this submission he has drawn my attention to Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 125 .

Keeping in view that the accused has been suffering mental pain and agony for the last about 13 years, I feel some consideration should be shown to him in the matter of sentence. Sentence imposed upon him is slashed and is brought down to 4 months rigorous imprisonment. Sentence of fine will remain intact. In default of payment of fine, he will undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

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

Revision dismissed.