Yashpal vs State of Punjab

A.S. Nehra, J.

The petitioner was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, ''the Act'') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months'' rigorous imprisonment by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya, vide judgment and order dated May 5, 1986. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur on September 1, 1986.

The prosecution story briefly stated in as under :

On October 19, 1984 Shri Harbhajan Singh Saini (PW1), Government Food Inspector for Jalandhar District, who under the orders of Director, Health Services, Punjab, dated July 31, 1984, held additional charge of district Hoshiarpur, inspected that shop of the petitioner, situate at village Khanpur near Mukerian, and found him in possession of 5/6 Kgs. of Haldi (Turmeric) powder in a tin for sale in his shop. He served a notice, Ex.P1 in form VI upon the petitioner and purchased 450 grams of Haldi powder from him for analysis purpose against payment of Rs. 8.55 paise vide receipt Ex. PG, after making the Haldi powder, contained in the tin, homogenous with a Karchhi. The Haldi powder so purchased was put into three dry and clean bottles in equal quantity. The bottles were then worked, labelled and wrapped in a strong thick paper and were duly sealed at the spot in accordance with the Rules after pasting paper slips issued by the Local Health Authority, Hoshiarpur and fixing wrapper with signature of the petitioner and of the Government Food Inspector Sh. H.S. Saini on each. Spot memo Ex.PH, about the recovery was prepared. The samples were taken into possession in the presence of Dr. S.S. Sharma and Cap. Attar Singh, who had, besides the petitioner, signed memos Exhibits PF, PG and PH. Thereafter, Sh. Harbhajan Singh Saini, Government Food Inspector, sent one sealed sample alongwith memorandum in form VII and the specimen of seal used for sealing the sample in a sealed packet through Karnail Singh, Peon, in the office of the Local Health Authority, Hoshiarpur, on the same date, to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh. Another copy of the memorandum together with specimen seal used, in a separate sealed envelope was also sent to Public Analyst, through the same messenger. The remaining two parts of the sample and copy of the memorandum together with specimen seal used were deposited with the office of the Local Health, Authority, Hoshiarpur. The report of the Public Analyst, Punjab, Ex. PJ, alongwith forwarding letter, with the direction to launch prosecution, was received by the Government Food Inspector from the Local Health Authority, Hoshiarpur, on December 18, 1984. The prosecution against the petitioner was launched by Sh. S.L. Lamba, Government Food Inspector, who had taken over from Sh. Harbhajan Singh Saini. Intimation, copy whereof is Ex.PK was sent to the petitioner by the Local Health Authority about the institution of the complaint against him on the basis of the report received.........from the Public Analyst. A copy of the Public Analyst report was also sent to him along with the letter, Copy Ex. PK. He was intimated that under Section 13(2) of the Act, he could get the second portion of the sample analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad.

The petitioner, at the time of taking of the sample of Haldi powder, had disclosed that he had purchased the Haldi powder from M/s. Hindustan Traders, Wholesale Karyana Merchants, Mukerian, vide Bill No. 717 dated September 18, 1984, alongwith other articles. Therefore, the alleged vendor M/s Hindustan Traders were also made coaccused with the petitioner, but they were discharged by the trial Court in the absence of any evidence of purchase of the disputed Haldi powder by the petitioner from that concern.

The prosecution examined Government Food Inspector Sh. Harbhajan Singh Saini (P.W. 1) and his successor Sh. S.L. Lamba (P.W. 2) in support of its case and on the basis of the statements, the trial Court found a prima facie case for framing of charge under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act against the petitioner. The petitioner did not plead guilty of the charge and claimed trial.

P.W. 1 Sh. Harbhajan Singh Saini and P.W. 2 Sh. S.L. Lamba, Government Food Inspector, were allowed to be further crossexamined by the petitioner. Thereafter, the prosecution examined P.W. 3 Onkar Singh, P.W. 4 Karnail Singh, Clerk and Peon respectively, of the office of the Local Health Authority, Hoshiarpur. P.W. 3 Onkar Singh deposed about the launching of the prosecution against the petitioner and its intimation together with supply of copy of the report of the Public Analyst. P.W. 4 Karnail Singh deposed about the delivery to the Public Analyst sealed sample packet and another sealed envelope handed over to him on October 19, 1984 by Sh. Harbhajan Singh Saini.

In his statement recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner denied the allegations of the prosecution appearing against him. He gave his own version stating that Haldi powder had been purchased by his father Munshi Ram from M/s. Hindustan Traders, wholesale Karyana merchants, Mukerian, vide Bill Ex. D.1, and that it was sold in the same stated in which it was purchased. He further stated that the shop from which the sample was seized was owned by his father Munshi Ram and that he was simply sitting at the shop in the absence of his father.

The petitioner examined Capt. Attar Singh (DW 1) who stated that he was not present when the sample was seized but he had come afterwards and had signed the memos prepared by PW. 1 Sh. Harbhajan Singh on the asking of the latter. He also stated that the shop from where the sample was taken was being run by the petitioner''s father Munshi Ram. Munshi Ram appeared as DW 2 and reiterated the version put forth by his son, the petitioner.

Mr. P.S. Mann, Sr. Advocate, counsel for the petitioner, has not addressed any argument before me so far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned. His solitary contention is that speedy trial is essence of justice and inordinate delay in disposal of the case itself has caused sufficient agony to the petitioner and therefore, it is a fit case where the petitioner should not be sent to jail and the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period during which he remained confined. He further contended that the sample of Haldi powder was taken on 19.10.1984 i.e. more than nine years back; that the present revision petition is pending since 1986; that the petitioner is on bail and that the prolonged litigation itself is a ground for treating the petitioner in a lenient manner. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Brahm Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988(2) Recent Criminal Reports 184 (SC) : 1988(2) F.A.C. 13 .

After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the last more than 9 years, the petitioner is facing the protracted litigation and thus has undergone sufficient mental agony. So, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case where no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail, at this stage, for undergoing the remaining part of his sentence. As a result, I maintain the conviction of the petitioner but reduce his sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine along with its default clause is, however, maintained.