The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and undue delays can justify leniency in sentencing, even when evidence supports conviction.

ORDER :

(Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.)

The Revision has been preferred under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C ’) against the judgment dated 01.03.2012 in Crl.A.No.204 of 2010 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division at Ongole, whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 20.10.2010 in C.C.No.235 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, finding the revisionist guilty for the contravention under Section 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘PFA Act’) read with Sub rule 28 Rule 49 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (‘the PFA Rules’) for the offences punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of ‘the PFA Act’ and convicted the revisionist under Section 255 (2) of ‘the Cr.P.C .,’ and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri Akurathi Ramakrishna, the learned counsel for the Revisionist, while reiterating the grounds raised in the revision, had argued that the shelf life of the packaged drinking water was 21 days as per the information on the sachet and according to PW.1, he had seized or purchased the packaged water sachets from the revisionist on 21.04.2005 and therefore, it could be said that after 21 days from 21.04.2005 i.e., after 12.05.2005, the said water should not be used for analysis, but as per Ex.P-9 analyst report, the water sample was analyzed on 19.05.2005 and therefore, the analysis had no value and the analyst report should not be used against the accused and further, the accused lost his valuable right under Section 13 (2) of ‘the PFA Act,’ but the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the same and convicted the revisionist erroneously and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed cannot be sustained.

4. The learned counsel relied upon a decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Resham Singh v. State of Punjab, [1973 Crl.L.J 766], for the proposition that conviction of accused on the report of public analyst was unsustainable, if the accused was deprived of his valuable right under Section 13(2) of ‘the PFA Act,’.

5. It is further argued that as on the date of purchasing the sample the revisionist did not manufacture any packaged drinking water for the purpose of sale and he was only conducting a trial run. Further, he contends that the accused did not fully establish the unit as on the date of sample and he did not commence any sale of his product. Further, he contends that the Food Inspector-P.W.1 demanded the revisionist for illegal gratification, when he failed to fulfill the demands; he was falsely implicated in this case. He further contends that though P.W.1 deposed that he purchased 36 sachets of packaged drinking water for Rs. 14.40 Ps, the cost of the each packets M.R.P. is Rs.1.50 Ps. Even the cash bill-Ex.P.2 is the printed form, though the case of the prosecution is that the accused manufactured adulterated drinking water in his unit M/s. Sri Surya Enterprises and the accused is the proprietor of the said firm. No material is available on record to show that as on the date of inspection, the accused established the unit and commenced his business. Further, he contends that the P.W.2 in his cross examination categorically deposed that as on the date of the inspection, M/s. Sri Surya Enterprises did not sell any of their products in Martur village. After obtaining permission he intended to commence the sales. Therefore, it is clear that the accused never manufactured any packaged drinking water for the purpose of sale and the P.W.1 intentionally collected the samples from the product produced at the time of trial run and he forcibly obtained the signature of the accused and file