JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, vide judgment order dated 9.10.1985. On appeal, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of the petitioner was reduced from one year to six months but the sentence of fine along with its default clause was maintained by the Sessions Judge, Amabala, vide judgment dated 5.5.1986. Aggrieved with the judgment of the Sessions Judge, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the prosecution case are as under :-

(3.) MR . H.S. Sawhney, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not address any argument before me so far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned. His solitary contention was that speedy trial was the essence of justice and inordinate delay in the disposal of the itself caused sufficient agony to the petitioner; that the petitioner is about 80 years of age and that, therefore, it was a fit case where the petitioner should not be sent to jail at this stage and the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period during which the remained confined. He further contended that the sample was taken on 22.8.1981, i.e., more than 11-1/2 years back; that the present revision petition is pending since 1986 and that this prolonged litigation itself is a ground for treating the petitioner in a lenient manner. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Brahm Dass v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988(2) Recent Criminal Reports 184 : 1988(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 13.