STATE OF HARYANA Vs. YAD RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Yad Ram was tried by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh, and convicted for committing an offence under S.7 read with S.16(1)(a), Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. Yad Ram filed appeal against the conviction, which was heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul. Before the learned Appellate Court Yad Ram did not contest his conviction under S.7 read with S.16(1)(a) of the Act but prayed for reduction in the substantive sentence only. In support of his prayer he urged that he sold milk only for a few days and was not a regular milk seller. He also urged that he was a first offender and had a large family to support. The lawyer representing Yad Ram in the first Appellate Court made a statement that he had nothing to say on merits of the case and joined his client to urge only for leniency in the punishment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, affirming the order of conviction of Yad Ram respondent on merits reduced his sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court but maintained the sentence of fine with its default clause as was imposed by the trial Court. For the reduction of the sentence below the minimum prescribed for this offence under S.16 of the Act on the respondent, the learned Additional Sessions Judge relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as State of Punjab v. Jeet Singh 1983 FAJ 233, which is equivalent to (1983) 1 Chand LR (Cri) 396.

(2.) The State of Haryana has come in appeal to this court for the enhancement of sentence of imprisonment. The appeal at the motion stage was admitted to a Division Bench.

(3.) At the time of hearing before Division Bench it was urged that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ishar Dass, (1985) 87 Pun LR 341, in which it was held that the sentence below the minimum prescribed under S.16 of the Act can be awarded only in the cases covered by the proviso to that section and in no other cases, Jeet Singh's case was not a good law and in view of the Full Bench decision it requires to be overruled. The Division Bench referring the case to a larger Bench observed : - "The observations in Jeet Singh's case (supra) on the question of sentence are in conflict with the decision of the Full Bench in Ishar Dass's case (supra). Sitting in a Division Bench, we on the basis of the Full Bench in Ishar Dass's case (supra) cannot overrule Jeet Singh's case (supra). So long as Jeet Singh's case (supra) is not overruled, it is likely to create difficulties for the subordinate Courts in the matter of sentence in cases under S.7 read with S.16(1)(a) of the Act." With these observations the Division Bench referred the case to the learned Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for the purpose indicated. This is how this case has come before us.