SUNDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the accused Petitioner -Sunder Singh, Proprietor of Kashyap Misthan Bhandar, Opposite New Bus Stand, Safidon, Jind, against the judgment dated 18.10.1994 whereby his appeal has been dismissed by Sh. Dewan Chand, Additional Sessions Judge -II, Jind, thereby upholding the judgment and order dated 19.10.1992/20.10.1992 passed by Sh. Krishan Kumar Bali, HCS Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Safidon vide which he has been held guilty under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 month.

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, sample of "Besan Ka Ladoo" was taken from the premises of the Petitioner. The said sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh and as per the report of the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, the sample was coloured with prohibited yellow coltar dye which was not included in the list of permitted colours and the sample was found not suitable for human consumption. Hence, the complaint was lodged in the Court. On appearance, the accused -Petitioner exercised his right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. According to the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory, Mysore the sample did not conform to the general standard laid down for a article of food under the provisions of the Act and Rules thereof, in fact it was found fungal infested. Finding a prima facie case under Section 7/16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, the accused was charge -sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure The accused in his examination pleaded false implication. The accused was called upon to lead evidence in his defence. However, the accused - Petitioner did not lead any evidence in his defence.

(3.) MR . Hitesh Pandit, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has argued only on the question of sentence and has not argued on the merits of the case. Thus, judgment of the Courts below are upheld and conviction of the Petitioner is hereby affirmed. He has stated that the present case is pending for the last about 17 years and he has already suffered a lot by facing the agony of trial for such a long period. It has also been submitted by counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has also remained in prison for about 15 days . It has been further stated that the Petitioner is a poor man and in fact at the time of occurrence he was a student and was studying and therefore, a lenient view be taken and the sentence awarded to him be reduced. In this regard, counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.),, 2000(3) RCR (Crl.) 561 (SC), Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(2) RCR (Cri) 108 and Hardwari Lal v. State of Haryana, 2003(1) RCR (Cri) 10.