Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision petitioner is filed by Jai Bhagwan son of Fateh Singh, resident of village Ahmedpur Majra, district Sonepat. Petitioner was convicted by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. He filed an appeal. The same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, on 23rd October, 1987, Food Inspector Chand Ram intercepted petitioner in Anaj Mandi, Gohana along with Dr. K.R. Rathi and Satish Kumar son of Hari Chand. Petitioner was found in possession of 15 kg cow milk. 750 ml of cow milk was purchased. Same was taken vide recovery memo, and the samples were drawn at the spot. Samples were sent to the Public Analyst, who opined that milk fat was 3.3 per cent and the milk solid not fat was 8.9 per cent and thus, milk fat was deficient by 17.5 per cent. Food Inspector, Chand Ram appeared as PW -1. Dr. K.R. Rathi appeared as PW -3. It is not disputed that report of the Central Food Laboratory will supersede the report of Public Analyst. Comparison of the two reports can also be construed as a mitigating circumstance in favour of the petitioner on a question of sentence as kind of adulteration, which can be imputed to the petitioner, stood diluted by the report of the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore.
(3.) MR . Hari Om Sharma appearing for the petitioner has stated that since both the courts below have found that the sample was drawn and made homogeneous, he will not be able to contest the findings of the fact recorded by the Courts below and therefore, will not contest the conviction and confine his prayer for grant of probation to the petitioner under Probation of Offenders Act, as in the present case, occurrence pertains to 23rd October, 1987 and more than 20 years have elapsed. Mr. Sharma has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Ramesh Chand alias Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana : 2005 Cri LJ 1569, wherein it has been held as under: "19. No doubt, the cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act should be seen with strictness, yet in view of the judgments of this Court in Narain Dass v. State of Haryana,, 1997 (3) RCR (Crl.) 311 (P&H) and Jog Dhian v. State of Haryana,, 2001 (2) RCR (Criminal) 331 and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case i.e. the petitioner has already faced the protracted trial of more than 16 years, he is first offender, was a petty shop keeper in rural area and was selling the branded non - iodized salt; which was prohibited vide notification just one year prior to the taking of sample and the fact that his case is covered by the second proviso of Section 16 of the Act, I am of the opinion that ends of justice will be met if the petitioner is let off on probation. The judgment of conviction is therefore maintained and the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the petitioner will be released on probation on his furnishing requisite bonds to show good conduct for a period of one year before the trial Magistrate within a period of one month from the date he received certified copy of this judgment." Counsel has further relied upon Shamsher Singh v. State of Haryana,, 2006 (2) RCR (Cri) (211). It will be apposite here to reproduce para 9 of the judgment, on which, much reliance has been placed by the counsel: "9. The next question, which has been pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that taking into consideration the fact that the occurrence took place on 19.6.1985 and the fact that the petitioner had given his age as 18 years at the time of framing of the charge, he would be under 18 years of age on the date of the commission of the offence. In view of this, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act as it is permissible to extend the same to cases where the accused is under 18 years of age. To substantiate this plea, the learned counsel then submitted that the petitioner was only a servant and had no control over the artificial dye which was used by the owner for colouring Laddus. It was also submitted that over 20 years have passed and it would be in the fitness of things if the petitioner is dealt with under the provisions of Probations of Offenders Act so that members of his family are spared from the strain which they are likely to suffer in case he is required to undergo the remaining period of sentence imposed upon him.";