Prem Parkash v. The State (U.T.), Chandigarh

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr. Rampal Verma, Advocate, for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for U.T. Chandigarh. JORA SINGH, J. Prem Parkash-petitioner, preferred this revision to challenge the impugned judgment dated 21.2.2003, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide which the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

19.2.2001, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, was dismissed. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

19.2.2001, petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month. CRR No. 1023 of 2003 -2- The prosecution story, in brief, is that Vireshwar Singh, Food Inspector, inspected the premises of Prem Parkash on 12.6.1995 at about 7.00 a.m. and found him having in his possession about 240 bottles of sweetened carbonated water lemon admixture of sugar and saccharin for public sale in village Burail, U.T. Chandigarh. After disclosing his identity Food Inspector demanded a sample of the same. Notice on Form VI was issued. Then Food Inspector purchased 9 bottles of 200 ml each of said carbonated water against cash payment of Rs.18/-. Bottles were divided into three equal parts and were labelled, stoppered, secured, fastened and were wrapped in a strong thick paper and pasted with gum. A paper slip was issued in triplicate by the Local Health Authority bearing signatures, serial, code number and wrapped around each sample container from top to bottom and pasted with gum. Sample bottles were secured by means of strong twine thread and sealed with four distinct seals. Signatures of the accused from whom the sample was taken were obtained in such a manner that paper slip and wrapper both carried a part of the signatures. Spot memo was prepared. One part of the parcel was sent to the Public Analyst alongwith the copy of the memorandum on Form VII in a sealed packet by hand. A copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the samples was also sent to the Public Analyst in a sealed envelope separately under intimation to the Local Health Authority. Remaining two sealed parcels were handed over to Local Health Authority, Chandigarh, for its safe custody alongwith two copies of the memorandum in sealed cover. As per report of the Public Analyst samples were found to be adulterated. On receipt of report of the Public Analyst complaint was CRR No. 1023 of 2003 -3- presented. Notice was issued to the accused. Pre-charge evidence was led. After hearing both the parties trial Court opined that a prima facie case under Sections 7(i) r.w.s. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') was made out. Charge was framed accordingly but accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After charge evidence was led by the complainant and after the close of evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. Opportunity was given to lead defence evidence but no defence evidence was led. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and after going through the record, accused was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid and against the judgment of the trial Court, appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. I have heard Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner, learned State counsel and have carefully gone through the evidence available on the file. After arguing for sometime when learned defence counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment then stated that out of the actual sentence of 6 months, the petitioner has already undergone 4 months and 25 days. Requested to take lenient view. Learned State counsel argued that petitioner was found in CRR No. 1023 of 2003 -4- possession of 240 bottles of sweetened carbonated water lemon for public sale. As per procedure under the Act, 9 bottles of sweetened carbonated water lemon of 200 ml each were purchased. As per report of the Public Analyst sample was found to be adulterated. Before recovery complainant had no enmity with the petitioner. No reason to disbelieve the statement of the witnesses. Undisputedly, learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the judgment of the trial Court on the point of conviction but only requested to take lenient view but even then I want to scrutinize the evidence as to whether story is genuine one or not. As per evidence on file, petitioner was found in possession of 240 bottles of sweetened carbonated water lemon admixture of sugar and saccharin for public sale. 9 bottles were purchased after issuing notice on Form VI on 12.6.1995. Complainant appeared in Court and supported the prosecution story. Bottles were kept for public sale. Simple allegation of the petitioner is that case is false one but before purchase of sample bottles petitioner had no enmity with the Food Inspector and the officials accompanying him. Petitioner did not move any application for sending the second sample to the Public Analyst. In case the bottles of sweetened carbonated water lemon were not for public sale then this fact should have been stated by the petitioner. No respectful person appeared in defence to state that bottles were not kept for public sale. Statements of the PWs show that evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court and the Ist Appellate Court. Revisional Court is not to re-assess or re-evaluate the evidence on file. In case judgment is found to be perverse or evidence on file was found to be misread only then there is a scope for interference. Judgment of CRR No. 1023 of 2003 -5- the trial Court on the point of conviction is upheld. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. Petitioner is the first offender and is the sole bread winner of his family. Occurrence is dated 12.6.1995, at that time petitioner was 52 years of age. Petitioner has already undergone 4 months and 25 days out of the actual sentence. He is to become hardcore criminal if again sent back to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken. In view of all discussed above, I take lenient view and direct the petitioner to undergo imprisonment already undergone (4 months and 25 days). Fine maintained. For the reasons recorded above, the present revision petition without merits is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence. December 9, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) JUDGE