MAHABIR PARSHAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months on March, 14, 1986 by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Safidon. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 24-7-1986 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H. S. Gill, Senior Advocate, did not address any argument assailing the conviction of the petitioner before me. His solitary contention was that speedy trial was the essence of justice and inordinate delay in disposal of the case itself caused sufficient agony to the petitioner; so, it was a fit case where he should not be sent to jail at this stage and the sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period during which he remained confined in jail. His contention is that the sample of vanaspati ghee was taken on 30th August, 1984 and more than 9 years have elapsed. He has further submitted that the present petition is pending since 1986; that the petitioner is one bail since July 29, 1986 and that the prolonged litigation itself is a ground for treating the petitioner in a lenient manner. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Branan Dass v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 13.

(3.) AS a result, I partly allow this revision petition and reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The sentence of fine, however, is maintained alongwith its default clause.