BEDI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this criminal revision, Bedi petitioner assails his conviction and sentence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act). The learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Faridabad, vide his order dated August 3, 1982, sentenced him to 1 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, upheld his conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment to nine months while maintaining the sentence of fine with its default clause.

(2.) THE broad outline of the prosecution case is that on October 28th, 1978, Food Inspector Raj Kumar accompanied by Dr. S.P. Tyagi, purchased 660 ml. of milk from the petitioner for analysis. After completing the formalities, the Food Inspector sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst, who vide his report dated November 1, 1978, found that the same was 30% deficient in its milk fat and 23% in its milk solid not fat. The case against the petitioner rested primarily on the unimpeachable testimony of Dr. S.P. Tyagi and the Food Inspector Raj Kumar. The petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case. His version was that he was carrying 2 kgs. of cow's milk and the same was to be used by a patient lying in the hospital and that it was not for sale. This plea of the petitioner was however, rejected by the Courts below as a cock and bull story.

(3.) INEVITABLY , the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the sample was taken in the year 1978 i.e. about 8 years back. The petitioner, according to him, is not found to be a previous convict. On that ground he has urged that the benefit of probation be extended to him. I feel difficulty in accepting this contention of the learned counsel as taking into consideration, the risk to the society from the food adulterations, the legislature had to amend the 'Act itself by providing Section 20-AA for the exclusion of Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360, Cr.P.C., to the persons accused of the offence under the Act. Even, the Supreme Court has shown its disapproval for such a policy. The other request of the learned counsel for the leniency in the sentence, however, can favourably be considered taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and also long drawn trial to which he has been subjected for abut 8 years. Taking into consideration the protracted trial of the petitioner and his age, I reduce his sentence of imprisonment to six months. The sentence of fine imposed on him is also on the high side. I accordingly reduce it to Rs. 1000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for four months.