- (1.) The petitioner stands convicted for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and imposed a sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) As per the allegations, on 7.3.1998, the Govt. Food Inspector alongwith Medical Officer checked the premises of the petitioner at Rohtak. He was found in possession of 2 k.g. of Red Chilli Powder for public sale which is contained in a bag/katta. The food inspector demanded a sample of red chilli powder by giving a notice in writing. He purchased red chilli powder from the petitioner after paying a sum of Rs. 24/-. The purchased red chilli powder was bottled in three dry, clean and empty bottles. The bottles were sealed on the neck with the seal of Medical Officer. These were labeled and wrapped with gum. A paper slip and the signature of Local Health Authority, Rohtak was pasted on each bottle from top to bottom. Each bottle was secured by means of strong twine and sealed with the seal of Medical officer and that of the Food Inspector. Thereafter, the sample was sent for chemical examination. It was found that red chilli powder gave ash insoluble in dilute HCL 1.61% against the maximum prescribed standard of 1.3% and grit 1.20%. On this basis, the petitioner was proceeded against and has ultimately convicted as noticed above. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that he will restrict his prayer for considering the case of the petitioner for releasing showing some leniency on the ground that he has been facing the prosecution since 1998. The protracted trial has made the petitioner to suffer enough. The agony of protracted trial is much more to the actual sentence now imposed upon him. The petitioner was convicted in the year 2009. His appeal was rejected in November, 2011 and he has now filed this revision petition before this Court. The petitioner is 58 years old and has already undergone sentence of one month and twelve days. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is only marginal difference to allege deficiency in the sample against the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has faced the agony of trial for the last 13 years and accordingly pleads that sentence imposed on him be reduced to the period already undergone. This Court had earlier considered the provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act so far as it prescribes minimum period of six months sentence and so also the bar contained in the Act in the form of Section 20(AA) of the Act for grant of probation under the Probations of Offenders Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C. Reference was made to the cases of Ganesh Maity v. U.T., Chandigarh, 2003 1 RCR(Cri) 418, Krishan Kumar v. State (U.T. Chandigarh), 2005 1 RCR(Cri) 975 and Surjit Singh v. State (U.T. Chandigarh), 2005 3 RCR(Cri) 583, where it is viewed that though minimum sentence is prescribed under the Act, yet the same can be reduced considering the long pendency of such proceedings. Following such precedents, this Court in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana (in Criminal Revision No. 378 of 1993) decided on 3.7.2007, has observed as under :- "Would not this reveal violation of his life and liberty guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law, says Article 21 of the Constitution. This, Article, earlier construed narrowly as guaranteed against execution action unsupported by law has now been given new dimensions by the Courts to say that it would impose limitation upon law making as well. Thus to pass the test of being a valid law/validly legislated law, it has to be a reasonable, just an fair as well as in addition to be being a validly legislated law. Assurance of a fair trial and a speedy conclusion of criminal trial is now recognized as part of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reference here can be made to Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, 1979 AIR(SC) 1360 and Kadra Pahadiya and others v. State of Bihar, 1982 AIR(SC) 1167. Seen in this context, delay in disposal of criminal prosecution, which in the present case is nearly 27 years, would certainly be a valid consideration for passing any order in regard to the sentence in the present case. Such a course was adopted in the case of Ganesh Maity. In the case of Krishan Kumar, the accused was directed to be released on probation, though he was of 19 years of age, considering the fact that he had faced trial for 19 years. Similarly, in the case of Surjit Singh, the sentence awarded to the accused under Section 16 of the Act was reduced to a period already undergone on the ground that the accused had faced trial for nearly 20 years."
(3.) Considering all these facts, it can be said that the petitioner has indeed suffered for the last 13 years and accordingly case is made out for showing some leniency in the sentence awarded. The petitioner has already undergone sentence of one month and twelve days. The sentence is, therefore, reduced to the period already undergone. The revision, otherwise is dismissed.;