LAWS(P&H)-2009-12-156

AJAIB SINGH Vs. STATE (UNION TERRITORY), CHANDIGARH

Decided On December 04, 2009
AJAIB SINGH Appellant
V/S
State (Union Territory), Chandigarh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The learned Magistrate had sentenced the petitioner to one year's substantive imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The Appellate Court had reduced the period of imprisonment to six months. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was not fat which was deficient but non-fat solids which were little less than the prescribed standards. It is his contention that there are various judgments of this Court which lay down that such a slight deficiency could occur because the animal was not properly fed and thus would not give rise to an inference that the milk was not pure.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishan Gopal Sharma and another v. Govt. of N C T Of Delhi, 1996 4 SCC 513 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that in food adulteration cases the guiding principle is deterrent and, therefore, even the marginal deficiency would be enough to find the accused person guilty. In view of this judgment it would not be possible for me to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence charged. However, keeping in mind the marginal nature of the deficiency in non-fat milk solids I deem it appropriate to uphold the conviction of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further informs me that the petitioner has been in imprisonment for more than one month.

(3.) Apart from this it cannot be lost sight of that the offence was committed more than two decades ago and for these two decades the petitioner has had to undergo the agony of facing a protracted trial, then appeal and then this revision. As regards the sentence, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to reduce it to that already undergone. Revision stands disposed of.