Balwan v. State of Haryana

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Food Inspector R.R. Jindal had no authority to draw the sample on 25.12.1986 nor he could launch prosecution against the petitioner. However, it is apparent from the records that when the Food Inspector had appeared before the trial Court as PW1 and stated that he was posted as Food Inspector for Hansi Tehsil on 25.12.1986. There was no challenge on the question of his authority of being the Food Inspector and competency to draw the sample and launch prosecution. To be fair to the petitioner, when the appeal was pending before the lower appellate Court, one paper was put on the file on his behalf, wherein it stood mentioned that powers of 13 persons as Food Inspectors stood withdrawn and the name of R.R. Jindal stood mentioned at serial No.5 therein. However, the defence failed to show as to who had issued that document and under what authority it had been issued. Therefore, lower appellate Court was justified in ruling out of consideration the said document by holding that it had no evidentiary Criminal Revision No. 162 of 1994 - 4 - value at all. Even the powers of Prem Kumar Nayyar, Public Analyst, Haryana, who issued repot Ex.PE has been objected to by the petitioner. When the matter was pending before the lower appellate Court, an application was filed by the petitioner wherein it was stated that said Prem Kumar Nayyar, Public Analyst, was not duly notified and appointed as such in accordance with Rules. Copy of his appointment/reversion order was attached. Though no reply was filed by the State but the lower appellate Court observed that the said issue would be considered at the time of final arguments. It is clear from the record that when the report of the Public Analyst was tendered in evidence by the Food Inspector, no objection to the same was taken. The defence did not even attempt to get the Public Analyst summoned and question him about his powers to analyse the food samples. Therefore, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner on this ground also. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the Food Inspector mixed the whole contents properly and made it uniform before drawing the sample nor the Public Analyst once again made the sample uniform before analysing its contents. If the argument of the petitioner is to be accepted, one of the contents of the sample, especially the milk fat, was expected to be in excess of the prescribed standard whereas it is established from the Criminal Revision No. 162 of 1994 - 5 - record that both the milk fat and milk solids not fat were deficient and less than the minimum prescribed standard. Such a deficiency could not be the result of not making of the whole contents of the sample uniform/homogeneous. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner is facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 23 years. Out of the sentence of six months imposed upon him, he has already served a period of about 10 days in jail. The petitioner has already paid the fine imposed upon him. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, for undergoing his remaining sentence, and, thus, it be reduced to that already undergone by him. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that as the milk sold by the petitioner was found adulterated within the meaning of Section 2(ia)(m) of the Act, he is required to be punished with imprisonment for a term which is not to be less than six months and with fine not less than Rs.1,000/-. The petitioner has already been sentenced to minimum imprisonment and fine and, therefore, the same cannot be reduced. In Parshadi v. State of Haryana, 2004(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 360, the sentence of a similarly situated accused, who stood convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was reduced to that already undergone by him as he had been facing the trial Criminal Revision No. 162 of 1994 - 6 - for a period of fourteen years. However, his fine was enhanced. While doing so, the Court relied upon a number of judgments, viz. Mahavir v. State through Govt. Food Inspector, 2000(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 208, Behari Lal v. State of (U.T.) Chandigarh, 2000(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 222, Des Raj v. The State of Haryana, 1996(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 689, Vijay Kumar v. The State of Haryana, 1996(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 554 (P&H), Mohinder Singh v. State (Chandigarh Administration), 1997 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 168 (P&H) and Satpal v. State of Haryana, 1997 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 15 (P&H). In Narinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2008(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 288, this Court, once again, reduced the sentence of a similarly situated convict to that already undergone by him as the occurrence pertained to the year 1984. In the present case, the petitioner was found to be carrying milk which was deficient in milk fat as well as in milk solids not fat. At the same time, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has been facing the criminal prosecution for the last more than 23 years. As per the custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has served a period of only 11 days in jail, i.e. from 23.2.1994 to 5.3.1994, besides, paying the fine of Rs.1,000/-. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view Criminal Revision No. 162 of 1994 - 7 - that some leniency can be shown to the petitioner in the matter of sentence of imprisonment by reducing the same from six months to three months, and, at the same time, enhancing the amount of fine Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months, whereas the fine enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. April 06, 2010 satish ( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE