The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the right to speedy trial and the need for judicial compassion in cases of protracted trials, as well as the interpretation of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, particularly Section 16(1)(a)(i) and Section 7, in light of the accused's entitlement to a fair and expeditious trial.

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed by Harvinder Singh son of Makhan Singh.

2. Kirpal Singh, Food Inspector, had inspected the premises of the accused on 28.12.1993 at 1.30 P.M. and found accused in possession of 8 Kgs. of turmeric powder which was meant for public sale. The turmeric powder (haldi) was stored in a tin. Kirpal Singh, Food Inspector, after following the necessary procedure, purchased 450 grams of turmeric powder and had divided 450 grams of turmeric powder into three equal parts and was kept in three dry, clean and empty bottles. The turmeric powder was sent to the Public Analyst who opined that the same was not in accordance with the specifications given under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

3. In pursuance of notice issued, petitioner appeared and requested for examination of second sample. The Central Food Laboratory also opined that the sample does not conform to the standards laid for the turmeric under the provisions of the Act.

4. Kirpal Singh, Food Inspector, appeared as PW.l and Dr. T.R. Giridhar as PW.2.

5. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, convicted and sentenced the petitioner to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

6. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner has filed an appeal. The same was dismissed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. on 28.11.1997.

7. The present revision petition was admitted in this Court on 22.12.1997.

8. Counsel for petitioner has not assailed his conviction.

9. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has undergone 25 days of his actual sentence. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Solum Lal v. State of Haryana (Criminal Revision No. 858 of 1996 decided on 22.2.2008) wherein this Court had taken into consideration protracted trial and had reduced the sentence to already undergone and fine was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-.

10. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case sample was taken in the year 1993. The appellant has suffered a protracted trial of more than 15 years. In Sohan Lals case (supra), it has been observed as under :-

"...He has relied upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Mahavir v. State through Govt. Food Inspector, 2000(4) RCR(Criminal) 208, wherein it was held as under: "6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, further contends that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 1984, to be precise. February 17, 1984 and a period of 16 years has already gone by. Petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of one and half decades. Petitioner was 40 years of age at the time of occurrence and further that he was already undergone sentence for a period of 25 days. For the,contention that petitioner should be dealt with leniently in these circumstances his counsel relies upon Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) RCR 563. Learned State counsel has, of course, been able to defend this case on merits but practically has nothing to say insofar as reduction of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is concerned.

7. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone by him. So ordered. Order of payment of fine and so also consequences in default thereof are, however, maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that fine has already been paid."

11. He has also placed reliance upon another single Bench judgment Des Raj v. State of Haryana, 1995(XXII) Criminal Law Times (482), which reads as under :

"9. Now, it is well settled that the right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitut