Lal Chand v. State of Haryana

Mr. Shivendra Swarup, AAG, Haryana. **** RITU BAHRI , J. Challenge is to the judgment dated 31.08.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh whereby he upheld the judgment/order dated 26.02.2010 and 02.03.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh vide which petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for simple imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo for two month simple imprisonment. Brief facts of the case are that Government Food Inspector had filed a complaint under Section 7 read with Crl. Revn. No.2959 of 2012 (O&M) -2- Section 16 of the Act with the allegation that on 04.06.2001, the complainant-Prithvi Singh accompanied by Dr. Vishesh Kumar, the then Medical Officer, General Hospital, Gurgaon had intercepted the accused Lal Chand at Palwal Road, he was having about 200 liters of mixed milk for public sale contained in six drums on Tata 407 bearing No.

HR26 GA- 1023 and demanded a sample of mixed milk by giving him notice in writing on Form VI. 750 mls. The milk was purchased after mixing by plunger clock wise and anti close wise on payment of ` 7.50 which was divided into three equal parts. The report of the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh shows that the sample contains 7.9% of milk solids not fat against the minimum specified limit of 8.5% as laid down for mixed milk under item No. A.11.01.11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Vide order dated 01.08.2011, the accused was ordered to be summoned and thereafter charges were framed on 25.11.2009. Complainant examined three witnesses and thereafter statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No evidence in defence was led after recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the evidence of the complainant was closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the order of conviction but prays that the Crl.

Revn. No.2959 of 2012 (O&M) -3- sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him as as he is facing trial for the last 12 years and is a first time offender. He has referred to judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Darshan Lal v. State of Haryana 2009 (5) RCR (Crl.) 504, wherein this Court was considered the appeal under the Act. The accused had faced the trial for more than 12 years. The conviction was upheld and his sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. The fine was enhanced to ` 10,000/-. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This question came up before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Brahm Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1789. In that case, the accused had been convicted for selling masur whole.

The accused had been acquitted by the trial Court but the High Court held him guilty. Eight years were lost. The part of the sentence had been undergone. Hon'ble the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to the one already undergone. Their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under: “Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant had been acquitted by the trial Court and the High Court while reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the appellate Judge has not made clear reference to clauses (f). Crl. Revn. No.2959 of 2012 (O&M) -4- The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing period of the sentence, though ordinarily in an anti-social offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the court should take strict view of such matter.

While dismissing the appeal, we would, however, limit the sentence of imprisonment to be period already undergone and sustain the fine along with the default sentence.” This Court while examining the provision of Section 16 in the case of Des Raj v. State of Haryana, 1996 (1) RCR (Crl.) 689 has held as under: “9. Now, it is well settled that the right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Fundamental rights are not a teasing illusion to be mocked at. These are meant to be enforced and made a reality. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact Crl. Revn. No.2959 of 2012 (O&M) -5- that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the social interest also, does not make it any-the-less right of the accused.

Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. This is how the courts shall understand this right; and have gone to the extent of quashing the prosecution after such inordinate delay in concluding the trial of an accused keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Keeping a person in suspended animation for 8 years or more without any case at all cannot be with the spirit of the procedure established by law. It is correct that although minimum sentence to be imposed upon a convict is prescribed by the statute yet keeping in view the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony which he undergoes on account of protracted trial due to the fault of the prosecution by this Court in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction.” The mitigating circumstance in this case is that the petitioner is undergoing the agony of this protracted trial for the last more than 12 years and he can be compensated Crl.