Azad Singh v. State of Haryana

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Paramjit Jhakhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 16.3.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Azad Singh (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 18.2.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, convicting and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (herein referred as 'the Act') The factual matrix of the case is that on 27.9.1991 at about 5.30 p.m. Teja Singh Government Food Inspector Panipat intercepted the accused who was found in possession of 50 kgs of cow's milk contained in two drums for public sale.

He served notice on Form No.VI and purchased 750 mls of mixed milk. The sample milk was divided into three equal parts and required preservatives were added in each bottle and sealed with the seal of the Medical Officer. Signatures of the accused were also obtained on each bottle. One sealed parcel along with memorandum in Form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana Chandigarh for analysis. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst that the milk fat was 57.5% deficient and milk solids not fat were 21% deficient of the minimum prescribed standard, a complaint was filed in the court. Criminal Revision No. 615 of 2002 -2- After recording pre-charge evidence, the petitioner was charged for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution led evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction.

The appeal preferred by him was also dismissed. Arguments heard. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged only to the extent that the sample was taken far back in the year 1991, the accused has been facing agony of the protracted proceedings for the last 19 years and he has undergone about two months and eight days out of the substantive sentence , consequently, has prayed for some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Notwithstanding the fact that right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished right guaranteed under the Constitution. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. But, the Constitution never wanted to allow the criminals to go scoot free if some procedural delays are caused on the part of the accused or on the part of the court.

However, the protracted trial could be considered as a mitigating circumstance for extending some leniency on the the quantum of sentence. Reliance if any could be placed on the judgment delivered in case Mahabir vs. State of Haryana, 1997 (3) RCC 469, wherein it was observed as under :- “The facts indicate that incident pertains to more than 14 years ago. The short question that thus arises for consideration is as to whether it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to undergo the rest of the sentence. There is no over- emphasizing the fact that speedy trial which is the essence of the justice has been lost. A reference of some the precedents in this regard would make the position clear. In the case of Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 (2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 67, 11 years had expired before the revision petition was decided. Keeping in view the inordinate delay, the sentence was reduced to one already undergone.

Criminal Revision No. 615 of 2002 -3- The same question again was considered by this Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar v. State (U.T.) Chandigarh, 1994 (1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 58. Therein the sample had been taken in the year 1984. 9 years had expired by the time the revision petition was heard. Once against the sentence was reduced to the one already undergone. The view point of the Delhi High Court is the same in the case of Vir Singh Chauhan v. State (Delhi), 1994 (2) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 253. When the revision came up for hearing, 7 years had expired. Learned Single Judge of the said Court reduced the sentence to the one already undergone. Before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Jannalal v. The State of M.P. 1995 (1) Prevention of Adulteration Cases 78, the same view prevailed.” While relying upon the aforesaid judgment, again learned Singal Bench of this Court in case Puran Mal vs.