DHARAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act) by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, vide Judgment dated September 25, 1985 and was sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months vide order dated September 27, 1985. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, on August 11, 1986. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) FACTS of the prosecution case, briefly stated, are as under :- On March 18, 1981, at 5.00 P.M. Amar Nath Gupta, Govt. Food Inspector went to the shop of the petitioner and found in his possession of 4 kgs. of lal mirch (red chilli) powder for public sale. After disclosing his identity, he gave notice in Form VI and purchased 450 Grams of lal mirch powder for analysis after paying Rs. 4.50 as price. The lal mirch, so purchased, was separated into three equal parts, put in three dry and clean bottles, which were labelled, stoppered and fastened securely and then wrapped with a strong thick paper and paper slip of local Health Authority, Bhiwani was securely pasted thereon. The bottles were sealed with distinct seals. The petitioner's signatures were taken on the slips on the bottles. One sealed bottle was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh, along with the memorandum in form VII in a sealed packed by railway parcel on March 19, 1981 and the remaining two bottles of samples along with two copies of memorandum in Form VII bearing the seal impressions were handed over to the Local Health Authority, Bhiwani. Copy of the memorandum and specimen impressions of the seal used to seal the packet was sent to Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh, separately by registered post vide post office receipt No. 217 dated March 19, 1981. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the same was showing the ash insoluble in oil. HCI and 1.54% against the maximum prescribed standard of 1.3% and 1.38% grit. Copy of the Public Analyst's report was sent to the petitioner along with the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and thereafter complaint was filed against him before the trial Court.

(3.) MR . R.C. Dimri, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner did not address any arguments before me so far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned. His solitary contention was that the speedy trial was the essence of justice and inordinate delay in the disposal of the case itself caused sufficient agony to the petitioner and, thus, it is a fit case where the petitioner should not be sent to jail at this stage and the sentence awarded to him be reduced to the period during which he remained confined to jail. He has further contended that the sample was taken on March 18, 1981, i.e., more that 13 years and 2 months back, that the revision petition has been pending in this Court since 1986 and that this prolonged litigation itself is a ground for treating the petitioner in a lenient manner. In support of this contention, he has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Brahm Dass v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 13.