RAMESH KUMAR S/O SH. DHANI RAM, R/O TEHSIL CHOWK KANGRA, P.O. KANGRA, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P. Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter was taken up at 10.30 a.m. On 13.11.1997, the authorized Food Inspector collected samples of food/edible articles from the shop owned and run by the petitioner/accused. Analysis of the same revealed that petitioner had violated certain provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Consequently he was tried for having committed an offence punishable under Section 16 (1)(a)(I) of the Act. After trial, vide judgment dated 26.12.2002, passed in Criminal Case No. 57 -III/98, titled as Food Inspector versus Ramesh Kumar, petitioner was convicted by the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. for having committed an offence punishable under the said provisions. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also pay fine of Rs. 2000/ -.

(2.) PETITIONER assailed the same by filing an appeal. But however such findings of fact and judgment of conviction and sentence were upheld by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in terms of judgment dated 4/11/2005, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 37 -K/05/03, titled as Ramesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh.

(3.) PETITIONER is also present in the Court. Though he does not assail the order of conviction but however, pleads that considering the long time gap between the occurrence of the offence and the fact that food article was paneer which was sold in the year 1997 and also was not in big quantity (15 k.g.) and keeping in view the fact that moisture in the area due to weather is normally found in the food particles, a lenient view be taken while imposing penalty of sentence and fine. He also prays that he is a young man of 48 years and has a family consisting of two young children and aged parents who have to be looked after by him. Also he is the only earning hand in the family. He also submits that it is his first offence and was never found to have violated the law either prior to the occurrence of the incident in question or thereafter. In the instant case, record reveals that at the time when sample was taken on 13th November, 1997, petitioner was just sitting in the vegetable shop, which was actually run by his father. The total quantity of the food article, i.e. Paneer, was 15 kgs. Petitioner just happened to be there when sample of 600 grams was collected by the Food Inspector. Petitioner is a young man and now his parents are aged. He has to look after his two children, wife and his aged parents. He is the only earning hand in the family. With long passage of time and in view of the over all attending circumstances, as stated herein above earlier, I am of the considered view that keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the apex Court in Sitaram Laxminarayan Agarwal and another versus State of Maharashtra and another, : AIR 1979 SC 1569; Ramdas Bhikaji Chaudhary versus Sadanand and others, : AIR 1980 SC 126; Municipal Corporation of Delhi versus Tek Chand Bhatia, : AIR 1980 SC 360; and Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar versus State of Maharashtra, : (1977) 3 SCC 25, a lenient view ought to be taken in the matter and interest of justice would be served if the sentence of imprisonment of six months is reduced till the rising of Court. However, fine is increased from Rs.2000/ - to Rs.5000/ -. Ordered accordingly. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel, submits that Rs.2000/ - already stands deposited before the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra on 26.12.2002. Petitioner undertakes to deposit the remaining sum of Rs.3000/ - before the same court within a period of three months from today failing which the original order of conviction shall stand. Conviction and sentence as passed by the Courts below is modified accordingly.