MEGH RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the allegations that the sample of iodized salt taken from him on 29.6.1990, on analysis, was found to be free from iodine whereas it ought to contain minimum 15 PPM of iodine. Vide judgment and order dated 26.4.2000, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, convicted the petitioner for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous Crl. Revision No. 899 of 2003 -2- imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, on 8.4.2003 by maintaining the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. He then filed the present revision, which was admitted on 15.5.2003 he was ordered to be released on bail.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner. However, he states that at the time of filing of the present revision, he was 73 years of age and this fact was mentioned in para 3 of the application for suspension of sentence. The petitioner is facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1990. When the petitioner was heard by the learned trial Court on the quantum of sentence, he had stated that he was a poor person, who was hard of hearing and was also not a previous convict. Therefore, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone by him.

(3.) Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner be punished severely in order to deter other like minded persons in the society.