SAHAB SINGH ALIAS SUBHASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was tried by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat for committing an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the allegations that sample of cow milk taken from him on 29.7.1993 was found to be deficient in milk fat by 32.5% and in case of solids not fat the deficiency was 47%. Vide judgment and order dated 12.9.2000, the trial Court convicted the petitioner of the aforementioned offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 13.3.2003. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner as recorded by the learned trial Court were maintained. He then filed the present revision in which his sentence was suspended vide order dated 1.5.2003.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has not contested the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Courts below. However, he has submitted that the petitioner has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1993. When he was heard by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence, he had stated that he had two small children, wife and aged parents to look after and he was also not a previous convict. Apart from the same, the petitioner was taken into custody on 13.3.2003 upon dismissal of his appeal by the lower appellate Court and was granted the concession of bail on 1.5.2003 when his sentence was suspended by this Court. As such, he has already undergone a period of about two months in jail. In view of the same, the substantive sentence of the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone by him.

(3.) Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that the offence had been committed by the petitioner against the society at large and the adulterated food articles pose serious danger to the health of the public and, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence.