The reformative aspect of punishment, mitigating circumstances, and the balancing of individual and societal interests are crucial in sentencing under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

Rajesh Bindal, J

1. The challenge in the present petition filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. is to the judgment dated March 18, 2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated January 18, 2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra was dismissed.

2. The petitioner in the present case was held guilty under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act'). The allegations are that on June 27, 1995 at 10.00 AM the petitioner was intercepted while in possession of cow milk for sale. Sample was drawn. On analysis, the same was found to be adulterated as milk fat was found to be deficient by 5% and milk solid not fat was 35% deficient of the minimum prescribed standards. The petitioner was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo Revision No. 671 of 2008 -2further simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. The judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra.

3. At the time of issuing notice of motion, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his prayer for release of the petitioner on probation, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had faced protracted trial for 12 long years and that he is a milk vendor.

4. When confronted with provision of Section 20-AA of the Act, where there is specific bar to application of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for considering reduction of the sentence awarded to the petitioner. The submission is that the petitioner is a senior citizen. Out of six months sentence awarded to him, he has already undergone about two months actual imprisonment. Reliance has been placed upon Gurdev Singh V. U.T. Chandigarh, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 121 (P & H).

5. Section 20-AA of the Act specifically debars the application of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to a person convicted for an offence under the Act unless the person is under 18 years of age.

6. Criminal jurisprudence is not only to bring peace, discipline and harmony in the society but also to give opportunity to individuals to reform themselves. The petitioner in the present case has learnt lesson of his life. He has faced trial for a period of 12 years as complaint was filed against him on September 20, 1995. He has suffered imprisonment for a period of about two months.

7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh V. State (Delhi Admn.), 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161 , observed as under:-

“Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such a case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have commit