R.L Anand, J. — I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.
The only submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner may be visited with leniency in the matter of sentence as the sample was taken on 12.11.1984 and since then the petitioner is suffering the vagaries of the criminal proceedings.
2. Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 lays down that when the offence is proved under Section 16 (1)(a) to (g), in such a situation the convict in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of Section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. Section 20-AA of the said Act further lays down that nothing contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply to a person convicted of an offence under this Act unless that person is under eighteen years of age.
3. The point for determination would be whether the sentence (less) than the minimum prescribed under the Act can be granted to a person who has been convicted for the offence of adulteration. This point came up for consideration before this High Court in Chand Bhan v. State of Haryana, 1996 (1) Recent CR 125, where it was observed that though such convict is not entitled to be released under the Probation of Offenders Act, yet if the convict suffers the agony of the criminal proceedings for several years, then keeping in view the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India qua the right of the accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony. Reliance was placed on Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994 (1) Recent C.R 160 and Nand Lal v. State of Haryana, 1992 (1) Recent C.R 82. In para No. 7 of the judgment his Lordship was pleased to observe as follows :—
“7. Now it cannot be disputed that the right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Fundamental rights were not a teasing illusion to be mocked at. These were meant to be enforced and made a reality. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the social interest also, does not make it any-the-less the right of the accused. Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. This is how, the court shall understand this right and have gone to the extent of quashing the prosecution after such inordinate delay in concluding the trial of an accused keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Keeping a person in suspended animation for 10 years or more without any case at all cannot be with spirit of the procedure established by law. It is correct that although minimum sentence to be imposed upon a convict is prescribed by the statute yet keeping in view the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony which he undergoes on account of protracted trial due to the default of the prosecution by this Court in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction.”
4. The above view of the High Court was again followed in Sat Pal… v. State Of Haryana…., 1998 (1) RCR (Criminal) 75 and Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1998 (1) RCR (Criminal) 563 where the Hon'ble Judges were pleased to hold that irrespective of the bar created under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act a convict can be visited with compassion and his sentence can be reduced to the already undergone. Reliance was also placed on 1988 (2) RCR (Criminal) 194 (SC) and 1996 (1) RCR (Criminal) 689. My attention has been invited to para 4 of the judgment in Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana (supra).
5. Relying upon all the judgments and keeping in view the fact that the sample was taken into possession on 12.11.1984, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will suffice if the substantive sentence of the petitioner stands reduced to the one already undergone. Order accordingly. The imposition of fine is not disturbed.
6. With this modification in the matter of sentence, the revision stands disposed of.
Petition disposed of.