RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted under Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Trial Court and awarded sentence to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine Of Rs.2,000. In appeal, Court of Additional Sessions Judge. Bhiwani vide its order dated 14.6.1996 reduced the awarded sentence to six months.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a sample of milk was seized from him on 24.2.1988. The sample was of cow's milk and on analysis it was found to be containing fat to the extent of 2.9% against 4% standard while milk solids were found to be 10.2%. In an application moved by the petitioner, the sample was examined again by Central Food Laboratory and in this examination fat was found to be 2.2% while milk solids 10.5%. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that sample was seized in the year 1988 and the petitioner has faced the agony of trial for last 21 years and that he had already undergone a sentence of one month out of the total sentence of six months awarded to him. He further contends that no fruitful purpose will be served if he is now confronted with the situation of undergoing remaining part of the sentence. Therefore, he contends that his plea of reduction of sentence or in the alternative alteration of sentence to fine may be considered sympathetically. The petitioner was aged 24 years at the time of seizure of the sample and now he is much advanced in age. He further states that he does not wish to address the Court on merits.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contends that in view of the fact that sample of the milk could not meet the prescribed standards and was found to be adulterated petitioner deserves no leniency.