IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.09.2025 YOGINDER PARSHAD ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Akash Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 10.09.2010 passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide which the conviction order dated 27.09.2008 passed by ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate Gurgaon was upheld whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 16(1) (a) (I) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

2 The brief facts of the case are that on 21.3.1997 around 1.30 p.m. PW1 Megh Nath, Government Food Inspector accompanied by PW2 Dr Ramesh Kumar, Medical Officer, CHC, Pataudi and Gulshan Kumar, independent witness inspected the premises of accused Yoginder Parshad and found him in possession of 7-8 Kgs. of Atta for public sale contained in an iron pippa. The Government Food Inspector demanded a sample of Atta by giving notice to accused in writing on Form VI prescribed under the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and 750 grams of Atta was purchased after mixing the whole contents properly and made uniform for analysis from accused for Rs.5.25 paise. The Atta was divided into three equal parts, bottled in three dry clean and empty bottles. The bottles were stoppered tightly and sealed on the neck with the seal of Medical Officer. The bottles were labelled and wrapped as per rules. One sealed bottle along with a memorandum in Form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed packet through Railway parcel. The other two sealed bottles/packets of sample along with two copies of memo in Form VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority on 22.3.1997 vide No. TSI-97/33 in a sealed packet. A copy of the memorandum in Form VII, a specimen impression of seals used to seal the sample and packets were sent to the Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh separately by registered post in a sealed envelope vide postal receipt No 2977 dated 22.3.1997. The sample was taken in the presence of PW2 Dr. Ramesh Kumar and Gulshan son of Khan Chand, M/s Khan Chand & Sons, Hardware Store, Amar Market, Pataudi. The report of of Public Analyst was received according to which the sample contained ash insoluble in dilute Hcl 0.25% against the maximum prescribed standard of 0.15% and grit 0.19%. Its taste was also gritty. Consequently complaint for prosecution of the accused under Section 7 (i) of the Act punishable under Section 16 (1)(a)(ii) of the said Act was instituted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence. He also contends that the petitioner has already undergone custody for a period of 02 months and 09 days out of the awarded sentence of 06 months and stated that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. He prays that since complaint in question pertains to the year 1997, a lenient view may be taken while passing an order on quantum by this Court.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner and filed the custody certificate in the Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that the Courts below has passed a well reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, he does not refute the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

6. The complaint in the present case pertains to the year 1997 and the peti