Judgment:
CRR No.1241 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.1241 of 2006 Date of decision: 16.09.2013 Parveen Kumar ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr.Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana.
**** RITU BAHRI, J.(ORAL) Petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.05.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dismissing the revision preferred against the order of conviction and sentence dated 27.09.2004 and 30.09.2004 respectively passed by Ld.
Chief Judicial Magistrate vide which petitioner has been held guilty under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adultration Act, 1954 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- on default whereof he is directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
The facts of the case are that on 04.11.1992, Natha Singh, Government Food Inspector inspected the Halwai shop of accused- Parveen Kumar, the present appellant.
He was found in possession of 6 Kgs., of Khoya for public sale contained in a 'Pranth'.
Khoya was checked in the presence of Dr.
A.P Bhatia.
The Food Inspector took a sample thereof after giving notice in writing on Form-VI Exhibit PA to the accused, as per Sharma Poonam 2013.10.05 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR No.1241 of 2006 2 the Food Adulteration Act, 1965.
Therafter 600 grams of Khoya was purchased on payment of ` 21/- vide receipt Ex.PB.
After purchase, sixteen drops of formaline were added in each bottle as preservative.
Spot memo Ex.PC was signed by the accused and were attested by Food Inspector as well as Dr.
A.P.Bhatia.
After that, the Food Inspector wrapped the bottle in a strong thick khakhi paper, secured by means of a thread and were sealed with the seal of Dr.
A.P.Bhatia.
The ends of the bottles were neatly folded and were affixed with the help of gum and a paper slip bearing code number and serial number and signatures of Local Health Authority, Karnal were pasted on each bottle from top to bottom.
Signatures of the accused were obtained in such a manner that both the paper slip and the wrapper on each sealed bottles carry part of his signatures.
One sealed bottle alongwith a memorandum in form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed packed through railway parcel.
The another two sealed bottles of sample alongwith two copies of memo in form VII were deposited with the Local Health authority on the same day in a sealed packed.
After receiving the report of the Public Analyst, Chandigarh Ex.PE vide which the sample was found to be adulterated, a complaint was registered in the Local Court.
The report of the Public Analyst was also sent to the accused on 02.02.1993.
In support of his case, the complainant examined Natha Singh Govenment Food Inspector as PW1, Dr.
A.P.Bhatia as PW2 and Lal Singh, Assistant from the office of Civil Surgeon (Local Health Authority) as PW3 Sharma Poonam 2013.10.05 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR No.1241 of 2006 3 and closed evidence.
A case under Section 7 punishable under Section 16 of the Act was prima facie was made out and he was served with notice of accusation.
Thereafter, in after charge evidence, Food Inspector Natha Singh Complainant appeared as PW-1, Dr.
A.P.Bhatia as PW-2 and they deposed and proved the case of the prosecution.
Thereafter PW-3 Lal Singh, Assistant from the office of Civil Surgeon (Local Health Authority) appeared as PW-3 and evidence of the complainant was closed.
After going through the entire evidence on record, both the Courts came to the conclusion that Khoya found in possession of the accused was adulterated and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced in the manner noted above.
There is nothing on record to show that the Courts below have wrongly held the petitioner guilty.
There is ample evidence on record to prove that the Khoya recovered from the petitioner, which he kept for public sale was adulterated.
Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid facts, there is no ground to interfere with the findings of guilt recorded by both the Courts below.
However, keeping in view the fact that in custody for about three weeks in relation to the case i.e.from 18.05.2006 to 13.09.2006 when his sentence was suspended and that the incident relates to 04.11.1992 when the alleged recovery was made from his shop and also that the petitioner has been facing the trial almost 21 years and it is not the case of prosecution that he is found indulged in any such activity during this period, he is entitled for leniency in the matter of sentence.
Consequently, while affirming the conviction of the petitioner, his Sharma Poonam 2013.10.05 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR No.1241 of 2006 4 sentence is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him.
With the aforesaid modification, the revision petition stands disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI) 16.09.2013 JUDGE Poonam (II) Sharma Poonam 2013.10.05 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh