LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-389

KULDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On May 04, 2010
KULDIP SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, alongwith one Tarsem Lal was arraigned as accused for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The presence of accused-Tarsem Lal could not be procured and he was declared as a proclaimed offender. However, the Petitioner was charged for the aforementioned offence and vide judgment and order dated 26/27.7.1989, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri convicted him of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the Petitioner filed an appeal, but the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri on 3.12.1991. He then filed the present revision in this Court, which was admitted on 9.12.1991 and he was ordered to be released on bail.

(2.) According to the complaint filed by the Food Inspector, on 22.9.1983 at about 4.30 PM, he visited the shop of the Petitioner, situated at bus stand, Bilaspur, where Tarsem Lal, servant of the Petitioner was present. Ten kgs. of vanaspati ghee was kept there in a tin for public sale. The sample of vanaspati ghee drawn by the Food Inspector was analysed by the Public Analyst, who vide his report Ex.PD gave an opinion that it gave Butyro refractometer reading of 47.5 at 40 C. Vitamin 'A' was absent and melting point 40 C against the minimum & maximum prescribed standards of 48, 26 I.U. & 37 C, respectively. It also gave Baudouin test negative, whereas it should have been lighter than 2 red units. Accordingly, the sample was declared to be sub standard, exposing the Petitioner to liability for the offence under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not challenged the impugned judgment whereby the Petitioner stands convicted under Section Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. However, it has been submitted that the offence relates to the year 1983 and a period of about 27 years has elapsed since then. At the time of his trial, the Petitioner was 25 years of age. When he was examined by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence, he had stated that he was a poor person, his family consisted of small children and he was sole bread earner for the family. It has also been submitted that in the present revision, the Petitioner was granted the concession of bail on 9.12.1991 and the revision has remained pending in this Court for more than 18 years. The Petitioner has already deposited the fine imposed on him by the trial Court.