PURAN MAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition has been preferred by Puran Mal son of Daya Ram. He has been convicted by the Court of Chief Judicial magistrate, Kurukshetra on 10. 01. 1992 under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to undergo six months RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the Court of Additional sessions Judge, Kurukshetra.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, on 30th June, 1984 at about 7. 00 p. m. , Food Inspector Kali Ram cpw-1) along with Dr. S. N. Chugh had purchased 660 ml of cow's milk from petitioner. After following the necessary procedure regarding taking the sample, the sample was sent to Public Analyst. The Public Analyst, vide his report Ex. PD, found the sample to be adulterated as it contained milk fat of 4. 9% and milk solid not fat 7. 2% and it was held that the milk was deficient in milk solid not fat by 12%.

(3.) MR. Dhaliwal appearing for the petitioner has very fairly stated that he will not be in a position to assail the testimony of pw-1 Kali Ram as both the courts below have relied upon the testimony of PW-1. He stated that he will confine his arguments that sentence be reduced and period of 24 years of protracted trial be construed as a special circumstance for reduction of the sentence. It has been stated by Mr. Dhaliwal that petitioner was taken into custody on 1st May, 1993 and was ordered to be released on bail on 7th May, 1993. But petitioner came out of the jail 3-4 days thereafter and hence, has undergone about 10 days of his sentence of six months. He has relied upon a single Bench judgment of this Court in Mahavir v. State through Government food Inspector wherein it Was held as under: "6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, further contends that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 1984, to be precise, February 17, 1984 and a period of 16 years has already gone by. Petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of one and half decades. Petitioner was 40 years of age at the time of occurrence and further that he was already undergone sentence for a period of 25 days. For the contention that petitioner should be dealt with leniently in these circumstances his counsel relies upon Manoj kumar v. State of Haryana. Learned state counsel has, of course, been able to defend this case on merits but practically has nothing to say insofar as reduction of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is concerned. 7. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone by him. So ordered. Order of payment of fine and so also consequences in default thereof are, however, maintained. Learned counsel for" the petitioner informs the Court that fine has already been paid. "