'Sword Of Conviction Kept Hanging For 26 Yrs': P&H HC Reduces Sentence In Food Adulteration Case, Flags Listing Of Plea After 15 Yrs

The Punjab & Haryana High Court reduced the sentence in food adulteration case to already undergone observing that the convict was facing the agony of the legal proceeding since 1999.

It is pertinent to note that when a conviction is recorded under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA), "neither the accused can be granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 nor he can be sentenced to the period of imprisonment lesser than as provided in the Act."

Justice Deepak Gupta observed, "the sword of conviction kept on hanging on the head of the petitioner for the last 26 years. It is easy to say that for almost all the time, the petitioner was on bail, but one cannot imagine the agony & trauma, which is faced by such a person, whose conviction has been recorded by the Court."

The Court added that the Court also cannot ignore the age factor, inasmuch as at the time when the offence was committed in 1999, petitioner was hardly 27 years of age. Now, after passing of the 26 years, he is 53 years of age and so, sending him behind bars at this stage to undergo the remainder of the sentence, will not be in the interest of justice.

It further noted that petitioner faced protracted trial from 1999 till 2007, when he was ultimately convicted by the trial Court. "There is nothing on record to indicate that there was any attempt on the part of the accused-petitioner to delay the trial. His appeal was dismissed in 2010."

The judge pointed that the present Criminal Revision was admitted the High Court in 2010, "because of the huge pendency, the file could not be listed for final hearing and when it has now been listed for final hearing in 2025, it is almost more than 15 years from the date of its admission."

Aditya Kumar was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the PFA  in 2007 in a complaint lodged by Government Food Inspector, Hisar and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period for three months and further to pay a fine of ₹500.

According to prosecution Kumar was found in possession of 20 kg of coloured masoor dal for public sale and found to have contravened the provisions of the PFA Act, 1954 and Rules.

Referring to Rule 23 of the PFA Rules, the Court noted that, "addition of any colouring matter to any article of food, except as specifically permitted by the Rules of the PFA Rules, is prohibited."

After analysing the submissions and material available on record, the Court opined that, "there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment of conviction as recorded by the trial Court, which has been correctly affirmed by the appellate Court."

Justice Gupta highlighted that as per the custody certificate, petitioner has already undergone the actual custody period of seven days and he is not involved in any other offence. It is also noticed by this Court that offence in question was committed in September, 1999 and after a protracted trial of more than 8 years, he was ultimately convicted in October 2007 and then his appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court in January 2010.

"The sentence of the petitioner was suspended by this Court in January 2010 and this way, he is out on bail for the last more than 15 years," the Court added.

It considered the question "whether it will be justifiable to send him behind bars to carry out the remaining sentence; or can he be released on probation; or whether sentence can be reduced for the period already undergone by him?"

The bench pointed that as per Section 20AA of the PFA Act , the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act 1958, or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not applicable to a person convicted of an offence under the provision of the PFA Act, unless that person is under the 18 years of age.

"It cannot be disputed that right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished right guaranteed under the Constitution," reiterated the Court.

In the present case, at the time of conviction in 2007, the age of the petitioner was stated to be 36 years as per the custody certificate, which means that at the time of committing the offence, he was 27 years of age and not less than 18 years of age. As such, he cannot be granted benefit of probation in view of Section 20AA of the PFA Act, the Court noted.

In the light of the above, stating that the petitioner has already faced the agony of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of ten years, the Court reduced to the period of sentence already undergone. Sentence of fine was, however maintained along with its default clause

 Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Title: ADITYA KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA

Click here to read/download the order