HARBANS LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment dated 5.7.1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal by which the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panipat on 20.4.1988 was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

(2.) ON 22.4.1983, at about 5.00 P.M., Munshi Ram, Food Inspector along with Dr. V.K. Gupta and Sham Lal had gone to the shop of the petitioner at Sanauli Road, Panipat. From the 30 kilograms of maida that was kept by him in a gunny bag for public sale, 600 grams was purchased on payment of Rs. 1.80 for analysis. Maida was mixed, made uniform prior to its purchase and divided into three equal parts and put into three bottles. These bottles were stoppered, labelled, wrapped and sealed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh along with memorandum on Form VII containing the impression of the seal that was used in sealing the bottles. Another memorandum on Form VII was sent to him separately through registered post. The Analyst revealed that the sample was adulterated as ten living meal worms and one living weevil was found therein. Thereafter, the complaint was filed against the petitioner. At the instance of the petitioner, another sealed bottle was sent to the Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, who in its report, Exhibit P-1, also found the sample to be adulterated as it contained alcoholic acidity above the maximum prescribed limit laid down in item No. A.18.0.2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. It also contained 40 dead insects and more than 400 dead insects larvae. The trial, which was completed after examination of three witnesses and recording of the statement of petitioner under Section 313, Cr.P.C., ended in his being convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appeal was dismissed as indicated hereinbefore. Hence, the present revision.

(3.) IN the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has suffered both financial and mental agony on account of prolonged litigation, I feel that the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if while maintaining the conviction, the sentence imposed on the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of fine is enhanced to Rs. 1,500/- and in the default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. With such modification in sentence, the revision petition is disposed of. Order accordingly.