RAM SARUP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(P&H)-1989-10-95
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on October 20,1989

RAM SARUP Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) On 21.8.1980, Shri C.L. Grover, accompanied by Dr. H.R. Goshal, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Ambala visited the premises of the petitioner who was running a Halwai shop. He was found in possession of 7 Kgs of Barfi contained in a Thal for public sale. Sample seized was of the Barfi which was found to be adulterated on analysis. Petitioner was challaned and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, vide order dated 30.4.1985 convicted him under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. His appeal was dismissed by Shri Hari Ram, Sessions Judge vide order dated 28.11.1985.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved he has filed this revision.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued on merits but has submitted that the incident relates to 1980 and the petitioner has already undergone agony of trial for the last 9 years and the counsel has prayed for reduction in the sentence. The counsel placed reliance on Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988 AIR(SC) 1789wherein it was held as under :- "Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant had been acquitted by the trial Court and the High Court while reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the appellate Judge has not made clear reference to clause (f). The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing the remaining period of sentence, though ordinarily in an anti-social offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the Court should take strict view of such matter." Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone. The petition is dismissed with this modification in the order of sentence.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.