RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMESH Kumar petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Addl. Adulteration Act by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, and vide his judgment dated 11-3-1986 he held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/. Against this judgment the petitioner filed an appeal which was partly accepted by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal and the sentence awarded to the petitioner was reduced to six months, though sentence of fine was maintained. Aggrieved by this judgment dated 1-10-1986 Ramesh Kumar has filed the present revision petition assailing his conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution against the petitioner was that on 29-12-1983 Shri Piara Lal, Govt. Food Inspector was present in Panipat City along with Dr. S.K. Sharma when the petitioner arrived there on a cycle. He was having about 30 kilograms of Ghee in his possession which was for sale. The Food Inspector after issuing notice purchased 450 grams of Ghee for analysis which he divided into three parts and sealed in three dry and clean bottles as per rules. One sealed bottle was sent to the Pubic Analyst and the other two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority. Vide his report dated 31-1-1984 the Public Analyst opined that the sample of Ghee contained moisture 1.07% against the maximum prescribed standard of 0 5% and as such the sample was adulterated. A complaint was then instituted against the petitioner which led to his conviction as referred above.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner did not address any arguments assailing the conviction of the petitioner before. He simply argued that the second sample in this case was sent for analysis to Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad and according to that report the sample was found to be adulterated as it contained moisture 1% against the minimum prescribed standard of 0.5% and it also contained curd 2.2% which slowed that in fact the Ghee was not properly heated otherwise it was not injurious to health. The sample in the case was taken in the year 1983 and the petitioner had faced this litigation for the last about 10 years. He had already suffered sufficient mental agony and harassment so a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence and the petitioner may not be sent to jail after the lapse of a period of 10 years. He further contended that in a case falling under the proviso of Section 16 (1) (a)(i) a sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded. In support of his contention he referred to the case of Umrao Singh Versus State of Haryana, 1981 Criminal Law Journal 104. In that case the appellant was of the age of 70 years and suffered from Asthama. He had a clean past record. The percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents. Having regard to these facts the sentence of the appellant was reduced to the period already undergone. I find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. The only adulteration found in the Ghee of which sample was taken from the petitioner was that it contained moisture 1% as against the minimum prescribed standard of 0.5%. This moisture would not have been there if Ghee would have been properly heated. For this minor omission the petitioner has faced this litigation for 10 years. It will not be just and fair to send him to jail at this stage and a lenient view in the matter of sentence will meet the ends of justice.