Ved Parkash vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Ved Parkash, revision petitioner was convicted for an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by Shri S.N. Chadha, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/. Aggrieved by this judgment dated August 27, 1983 he filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa as per judgment dated June 6, 1985. The present revision petition has been directed against this judgment.

The prosecution case in brief was that on April 10, 1978, Shri O.P. Kalra, Government Food Inspector accompanied by other persons visited the premises of the petitioner and found him in possession of 200 kg. of Sarson oil which was for sale. He purchased 375 grams of oil from the petitioner as a sample and sealed the same into three dry and clean bottles. One sample was sent, to the Public Analyst for analysis who reported that the sample contained free fatty acid (oleic acid) 3.3% as against the maximum of 3% and as such it was adulterated.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

The learned counsel for the petitioner did not address any arguments assailing the conviction of the petitioner. He simply prayed that the petitioner had already remained in the jail for a part of the imprisonment so the period of sentence may be reduced. In view of the circumstances of the case it was urged that the sample in the case was taken in the year 1978 and a period of more than thirteen years had elapsed during which the petitioner suffered sufficient harassment and mental agony. He also contended that the variation in the fatty acid found in the oil was very insignificant and it was not a fit case where the petitioner should be sent to jail after such a long time. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the case of Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988(2) Recent Criminal Reports 184 which is to the following effect :

"Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant had been acquitted by the trial Court and the High Court while reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the appellate Judge has not made clear reference to clause (f). The occurrence took place about more then 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing the remaining period of the sentence, though ordinarily in an antisocial offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the Court should take strict view of such matter."

The abovementioned authority was also relied upon in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports 183 and also in the case of Ram Lal v. State of Haryana, 1991(1) Recent CrimiReports 81.

I find that the present case is the one where a minor variation was found in the free fatty acid and the petitioner has already faced the hazards of a prolonged litigation. It is a fit case where the petitioner should not be sent to jail after a period of thirteen years.

In view of the abovementioned authorities and circumstances of the case, while maintaining conviction of the petitioner, I reduce his sentence to the one already undergone. The sentence of fine is maintained.

With this modification in the sentence, the petition is hereby dismissed.