Ram Chander vs State of Haryana

This revision has been directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 31-7-1987 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. Ram Chander, the petitioner herein, was held guilty under S. 6(1)(c) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, on the basis of complaint Ex. PC filed against him by the Food Inspector K. K. Bhutani. The order of conviction has been confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide his orders dated 17th of November, 1987.

It has been the prosecution case that on 16th of October, 19984 at about 5.00 p.m. K. K. Bhutani, Food Inspector along with Dr. Hazari Lal, Medical Officer and his Peon Udey Sing came up to the shop of the petitioner in village Kungar, Tehsil Bhiwani. The petitioner was present at his shop and some Haldi power lying in a tin for sale in his shop. The Food Inspector filled form No. 6, Ex. PA and expressed his intention to purchase Haldi from the petitioner for the purpose of analysis. The petitioner was asked to sign the form in token of its acceptance and to sell Haldi power to the Food Inspector. The petitioner, however, abused the Food Inspector and those accompanying him saying that he was not going to allow the Food Inspector to take sample of Haldi and the Food Inspector was at liberty to take whatever action he deemed proper. Some persons arrived at the scene of occurrence. However, they declined to join the proceedings as also to sign the memo.

The prosecution in its endeavour to bring home the offence against the petitioner examined K. K. Bhutani P.W. 1, Dr. Hazari Lal P.W. and Udey Singh P.W. 3.

When examined under S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the incriminating material put to him and further stated that he was an agriculturist even though he was running a vegetable shop. In defence the examined Karan Singh P.W. 1 and Dilbagh Singh as P.W. 2.

After resultant trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of six months. The conviction was maintained by the appellate Court but the sentence was reduced from one year to six months and fine from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 1000/-.

Mr. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his arguments only to the quantum of this Court in Bihari Lal v. UT, Chandigrah 2000 (1) ALCLR 832 and Chander Bhan Vs. State of Haryana, as also judgment of Supreme Court in Braham Dass Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, , contends that inasmuch as the petitioner has undergone the agony of trial for a period of over 16 years, he should be dealt with leniently. The judgment referred by learned counsel for the petitioner do support his contention. The petitioner herein has actually undergo agony of trial for a period of 16 years and ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the order of conviction, sentence is reduced to already undergone and fine is increased to Rs. 5000/-. So ordered. This revision is partly allowed. The sentence, as mentioned above, is reduced to the one already undergone. However, the petitioner shall pay fine of Rs. 5000/- within one month, failing which he shall have to serve the sentence, as ordered by the Courts below.