Suman Saini Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1162797
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnAug-21-2014
AppellantSuman Saini
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh. crr-1757-2014 (o&m).date of decision : 21.08.2014 suman saini ......appellant versus state of haryana ....respondent coram: hon'ble ms.justice anita chaudhry1 whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. 2. to be referred to the reporters or not ?. 3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?. argued by: mr.rakesh dhiman, advocate for petitioner. mr.g.s.sandhu, dag, haryana. **** anita chaudhry, j. the petitioner was tried by the chief judicial magistrate, gurgaon and was convicted under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the prevention of food adulteration act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months along with fine of rs.1000/-. in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2- aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner sunil yadav201408.22 10:45 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crr-1757-2014 (o&m).-2- filed an appeal which was dismissed by the additional sessions judge, gurgaon on 14.5.2014. 3- the petitioner thereafter filed this revision. notice of motion was issued limited to the quantum of sentence only. 4- learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case relates to the year 2004 and though, he is not contesting on merits, but the sample was analysed after 46 days and growth of fungus was natural. it was urged that the petitioner was 40 years old and had faced a long trial of 10 years.it was contended that the petitioner has undergone 3 months of custody and there is no other case against him. he prays for release of the petitioner on probation. 5- the learned state counsel however, has opposed the prayer for release of the petitioner on probation. it has been urged that the petitioner was found to be in possession of 50 kg. of khoya which was not fit for consumption and had fungus. 6- the sample was lifted in 2004. the petitioner has faced a protracted trial of 10 years.the petitioner has undergone three months of custody. learned counsel for the petitioner pleads for leniency on the plea that petitioner has undergone an agony of prolonged trial and is a firs.offender. 7- there is no material on the record to show that any other case for violation of the food adulteration act was registered against the petitioner. the release on probation in a case where the minimum sentence had been prescribed was considered by the hon'ble apex court sunil yadav201408.22 10:45 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crr-1757-2014 (o&m).-3- in isher das versus state (1973) 3 s.c.r.65. 8- in joginder singh versus state of punjab 1980 plr585 a full bench of this court also held that mere prescription of the minimum sentence under section 61(1)(c) of the act is no bar to the applicability of sections 360 and 361 of the criminal procedure code. the ratio of isher dass's and joginder singh's cases (supra) has also been followed in pakhar singh versus state of punjab 2007(1) rcr (criminal) 396. 9- in the present case, it has not been disputed that the petitioner is not a previous convict. out of the six months imprisonment imposed upon him, he has already undergone period of three months. there is no bar to the applicability of section 360 and 361 cr.p.c.therefore, considering all the circumstances, the revision is partly allowed. the order of conviction passed against the petitioner is maintained, whereas the order of sentence is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of two years on his executing bonds to the satisfaction of the chief judicial magistrate, gurgaon, with an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years and to appear and receive sentence during the said period as and when called upon to do so. fine already been deposited and same is treated as costs of the proceeding. august 21, 2014. (anita chaudhry) sunil yadav judge sunil yadav201408.22 10:45 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CRR-1757-2014 (O&M).Date of decision : 21.08.2014 Suman Saini ......Appellant Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?.

Argued by: Mr.Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr.G.S.Sandhu, DAG, Haryana.

**** ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.

The petitioner was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon and was convicted under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months along with fine of Rs.1000/-.

In default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

2- Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner SUNIL YADAV201408.22 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-1757-2014 (O&M).-2- filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon on 14.5.2014.

3- The petitioner thereafter filed this revision.

Notice of motion was issued limited to the quantum of sentence only.

4- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case relates to the year 2004 and though, he is not contesting on merits, but the sample was analysed after 46 days and growth of fungus was natural.

It was urged that the petitioner was 40 years old and had faced a long trial of 10 yeaRs.It was contended that the petitioner has undergone 3 months of custody and there is no other case against him.

He prays for release of the petitioner on probation.

5- The learned State counsel however, has opposed the prayer for release of the petitioner on probation.

It has been urged that the petitioner was found to be in possession of 50 Kg.

of Khoya which was not fit for consumption and had fungus.

6- The sample was lifted in 2004.

The petitioner has faced a protracted trial of 10 yeaRs.The petitioner has undergone three months of custody.

Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads for leniency on the plea that petitioner has undergone an agony of prolonged trial and is a fiRs.offender.

7- There is no material on the record to show that any other case for violation of the Food Adulteration Act was registered against the petitioner.

The release on probation in a case where the minimum sentence had been prescribed was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court SUNIL YADAV201408.22 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-1757-2014 (O&M).-3- in Isher Das versus State (1973) 3 S.C.R.65.

8- In Joginder Singh versus State of Punjab 1980 PLR585 a Full Bench of this Court also held that mere prescription of the minimum sentence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act is no bar to the applicability of Sections 360 and 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The ratio of Isher Dass's and Joginder Singh's cases (supra) has also been followed in Pakhar Singh versus State of Punjab 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 396.

9- In the present case, it has not been disputed that the petitioner is not a previous convict.

Out of the six months imprisonment imposed upon him, he has already undergone period of three months.

There is no bar to the applicability of Section 360 and 361 Cr.P.C.Therefore, considering all the circumstances, the revision is partly allowed.

The order of conviction passed against the petitioner is maintained, whereas the order of sentence is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of two years on his executing bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, with an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years and to appear and receive sentence during the said period as and when called upon to do so.

Fine already been deposited and same is treated as costs of the proceeding.

August 21, 2014.

(ANITA CHAUDHRY) sunil yadav JUDGE SUNIL YADAV201408.22 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh