Judgment

Mr. Deepak Gupta , J.

This revision is against the order dated 17.1.2007 of conviction recorded by the trial Court, which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court on 28.5.2008.

2. Brief facts, relevant to the case are that shop of the petitioner was inspected by Food Inspector on 22.12.1994 at about 3.30 PM and sample of khoya was taken, which on analysis was found to be adulterated. After trial, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra convicted the petitioner for committing offence under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the Act’) vide judgment dated 17.01.2007 and vide a separate order dated 19.01.2007, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence of 15 days. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra on 28.05.2008.

3. Before this Court, short submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is to reduce the sentence of the petitioner for the period already undergone by him, having regard to his advanced age and protracted trial. It is pointed out by learned counsel that against the minimum prescribed standard of 20% milk fat, the sample was found to contain 19.5% milk fat i.e., only 0.5% deficiency. Offence was committed in December, 1994 and a period of almost 29 years has elapsed and by this time, petitioner is more than 70 years of age. He has remained in custody from 28.05.2008 till his sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 03.06.2008.

4. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand submits that minimum sentence is provided for committing the offence under the provisions of the Act. However, learned State Counsel is unable to controvert the factual position as pointed out as above and the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents nor there is anything on record to show that he is involved in any criminal activity post-conviction.

5. I have considered submissions of both the sides and perused the paper book.

6. In Ram Chander Vs. State of Haryana – CRR No.280 of 2003 (O&M), decided on 14.01.2015, it has been held by this High Court that though Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Act provides for the minimum sentence but for adequate and special reasons, the sentence could be awarded lower than the minimum prescribed under the Act. In that case, sample of the sweetened carbonated water was drawn on 31.05.1991. The same was found to be adulterated as sample contained saccharine 172 PPM against the maximum prescribed standard of 100 PPM. Upholding the conviction, this Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, though amount of fine was enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 11,000/- after noticing that petitioner was not a previous convict and was aged about 85 years.

7. In Umrao Singh Vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No.404 of 1981 (arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.965 of 1981, decided on 10.04.1981, percentage of deficiency in sample of milk was found to be 0.4% in fat contents. Accused was an old man suffering from asthma with clean past record. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that it was a fit case to award the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed sentence and sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

8. In Satbir Vs. State of Haryana – CRR No.2048 of 2010, decided on 02.04.2019, after noticing that petitioner had faced agony of protracted trial for a period of 22 years and had already undergone 02 months and 06 days of total sentence out of 06 months; that his