GURDEV SINGH Vs. U.T., CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. The only submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner may be visited with leniency in the matter of sentence as the sample was taken on 12.11.1984 and since then the petitioner is suffering the vagaries of the criminal proceedings.

(2.) SECTION 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 lays down that when the offence is proved under Section 16(1)(a) to (g), in such a situation the convict in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of Section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. Section 20-AA of the said Act further lays down that nothing contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply to a person convicted of an offence under this Act unless that person is under eighteen years of age.

(3.) THE above view of the High Court was again followed in Sat Pal v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) RCR(Criminal) 75 and Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) RCR(Criminal) 563 where the Hon'ble Judges were pleased to hold that irrespective of the bar created under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act a convict can be visited with compassion and his sentence can be reduced to the already undergone. Reliance was also placed on 1988(2) RCR(Criminal) 194 (SC) and 1996(1) RCR(Criminal) 689. My attention has been invited to para 4 of the judgment in Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana (supra).