Ved Parkash vs State of Haryana

Sat Pal, J. (Oral)

This revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated 3rd march, 1994 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi and judgment dated 13th July, 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. In terms of the judgment, the learned trial court had convicted the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and had sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ (in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month).

The petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment of the trial court dated 3rd March, 1994 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide his judgment dated 13th July, 1995 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the learned trial court.

Notice of this petition was issued to the Advocate General, Haryana on 20th August, 1995. Arguments were heard partly on 24th August, 1995 and the case was adjourned for today for remaining arguments.

After going through the contents of the judgments of the courts below I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the courts below as the said findings are based on legal evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the complaint was filed on 3rd December, 1986 and the charge was framed six times. He further submitted that the petitioner had been facing trial for the last 81/2 years. He also submitted that the petitioner has not been convicted earlier and he has been in custody since 13th July, 1993. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner should be granted concession under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Mr. Sudhir Makkar, learned AAG, Haryana, however, submitted that in the present case minimum sentence is provided under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and as such the petitioner was not entitled to the concession under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The Full Bench of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State, 1980 Chandigarh Law Reporter 196 held that provision of minimum sentence does not operate as bar to the applicability of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in view of sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is true that minimum imprisonment of six months is provided under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but there is no bar to release the petitioner under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in case Joginder Singh (supra). Keeping in view the special facts of the case namely that the petitioner is not a previous convict and he has been facing trial for a period of over 81/2 years and has also undergone imprisonment for a period of 11/2 months, I am of the view that it is a fit case for granting the concession under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained but the sentence of imprisonment is set aside and it is directed that he be released on probation on his entering into bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. He is further directed to deposit Rs. 2,000/ as costs of the proceedings. The revision petition is thus partly allowed as indicated hereinabove.