A.S.NEHRA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, vide judgment order dated 9.10.1985. On appeal, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of the petitioner was reduced from one year to six months but the sentence of fine along with its default clause was maintained by the Sessions Judge, Amabala, vide judgment dated 5.5.1986. Aggrieved with the judgment of the Sessions Judge, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the prosecution case are as under :- On 22.8.1981, Government Food Inspector C.L. Grover accompanied by Dr. H.R. Goshal visited the premises of the accused petitioner, i.e. Karyana shop situated on the Civil Hospital Road, Ambala City, at about 3.00 P.M. The petitioner was found in possession of about 10 Kgs. of red chillies' power contained in a tin for public sale. Krishan Lal, a witness from the public, was associated. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and then served noticed Exhibit P A upon the petitioner. Thereafter, he purchased 600 grams of chillies' power for analysis, on payment of Rs. 4.80, vide receipt Exhibit PB. The chilies' powder so purchased was divided into three equal parts and put into three dry and clean bottles. The bottles were then stoppered labelled and wrapped in a fairly strong thick paper. A paper slip issued by the local health authority bearing its code number, serial number and signatures, was pasted on each bottle from bottom to top. The signatures of the petitioner were obtained were obtained in such a manner that they partly appeared on the paper seal and partly on the sample bottle. The paper-cover was then further secured and fastened and sealed with the seals of the Food Inspector and Dr. H.R. Goshal. Spot memo Exhibit PC was prepared and the documents were signed by the petitioner and attested by the PWs. One such sealed bottle along with a copy of memo in Form VII was to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, through SSK Sant Ram. Office of CMC, Ambala, and another copy of memo in Form VII was sent separately to the Public Analyst through the same messenger and the other two bottles were deposited with LHA. Report (Exhibit PD) of the Public Analyst was received, declaring the sample adulterated as it gave the total 8.04% of ash insoluble in dilute Hel. 2.0% against the maximum prescribed standard of 8.8% and 1.3% respectively. It also contained all soluble red coaltar dye whereas it should be free from added colouring matter. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, prosecution was launched against the petitioner who was informed of the same through registered post along with a copy of the report of the Public Analyst.
(3.) MR . H.S. Sawhney, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not address any argument before me so far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned. His solitary contention was that speedy trial was the essence of justice and inordinate delay in the disposal of the itself caused sufficient agony to the petitioner; that the petitioner is about 80 years of age and that, therefore, it was a fit case where the petitioner should not be sent to jail at this stage and the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period during which the remained confined. He further contended that the sample was taken on 22.8.1981, i.e., more than 11-1/2 years back; that the present revision petition is pending since 1986 and that this 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 a judgment of the Supreme Court in Brahm Dass v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988(2) Recent Criminal Reports 184 : 1988(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 13.;