Crl. Revn No. 2355 of 2014 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Revn No. 2355 of 2014 (O&M)

Date of Decision:- 28.08.2014

Ajmer Singh

....Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Manoj Kumar Pundir, Advocate

for the petitioner

Mr. Shekhar Mudgal, AAG, Haryana

****

RITU BAHRI , J.

Challenge is to the order dated 04.07.2014 passed by

Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak whereby the judgment of conviction

dated 07.12.2012 and order of sentence dated 10.12.2012 passed

by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, has been upheld.

Petitioner was convicted substantially for a period of six months,

under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food and

Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ' the Act').

Brief facts of the case are that on 23.09.2003, at about

8.30 A.M, Om Kumar Government Food Inspector, District Rohtak

inspected the premises of the accused at Gohana Road, near Inder

Cold Store, Rohtak. At the time of inspection, the accused was

having in his possession about 30 litres of cow milk contained in

two iron drums for public sale. He demanded a sample of said milk

by issuing a notice in writing on Form-VI prescribed under the

GAURAV

2014.09.01 13:13

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Crl. Revn No. 2355 of 2014 (O&M)

-2-

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and purchased 1500

ml cow milk for analysis, for a sum of Rs.18/-. The sample was

divided in to three equal parts and bottled in three dry and clean

empty bottles. Forty drops of formalin were added as preservative

in each bottle and each part of the sample was wrapped with khaki

paper on the neck and sealed with seal of Medical Officer. The

signature of local Health authority was also pasted on each sample

and every sample was secured by means of strong twine and

sealed with the seals of Medical Officer and the Food Inspector.

The signature of the accused was also obtained. One sealed parcel

along with memorandum in Form VII was sent sent to Public

Analyst, Haryana Chandigarh on 24.09.2003. The other two sealed

parcels of sample along with two copies of memo in FormVII were

deposited with the Local Health Authority, Karnal. Sample, which

were sent to Public Analyst, Haryana Chandigarh and report of the

Analyst shows that sample containing 7.1% milk solids not fat

against the minimum prescribed standard of 8.5% as laid down for

Cow milk under item No. A.11.01.11 of PFA Rules, 1955.

On this complaint, the accused/petitioner was

summoned and after recording pre charge evidence, the accused

was charge-sheeted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i)

of the Act to which petitioner/accused did not plead guilty and

claimed trial. Thereafter, the petitioner was convicted substantially

for a period of six months, under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act,

vide order dated 10.12.2012.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/accused filed the

GAURAV

2014.09.01 13:13

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Crl. Revn No. 2355 of 2014 (O&M)

-3-

appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 07.12.2012 and

order of sentence dated 10.12.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Rohtak, which was also dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge

the order of conviction on merits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, further

contends that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year

2003 and a period of almost 11 years have already gone by.

Petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial,

spinning over a period of more than one decade. Petitioner has

already undergone the sentence for 01 month and 24 days , as

per custody certificate dated 27.08.2014. No other case is pending

against him.

Accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the

sent