LEKH RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed against the concurrent conviction of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the consequent sentence of six months (rigorous imprisonment) imposed upon him. Custody certificate filed in Court is taken on record. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had taken a sample from the drum of milk kept by the petitioner for sale. The sample was sent both to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh as well as the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Mysore. As per the Public Analyst's report the milk fats were more than the required percentage while the milk solids were marginally less. However, as per the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory both the milk fats as well as the milk solids were quite low.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has stated that though he has the arguable case on merits yet in case this Court is inclined to grant the petitioner little leniency in terms of sentence (the complaint having been filed as far back as 1992) he would not press for hearing the revision on merits because even otherwise the petitioner has undergone 1 month and 23 days out of the total sentence of 6 months; He has consequently prayed that the punishment should be reduced to that which he had already undergone.

(3.) I find myself with the agreement of the prayer made by the learned Assistant Advocate General. In the circumstances, even while upholding the conviction, the sentence of the petitioner is modified to that which he has already undergone and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000. Let the petitioner deposit the said fine within a period of two months from today before the trial Court, failing which this petition would be deemed to be dismissed and the petitioner shall undergo the remaining portion of sentence originally imposed upon him. Petition stands disposed of.