Skip to content


Kehar Singh Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1974CriLJ233
AppellantKehar Singh
RespondentThe State
Cases Referred and The Chairman. Jugsalai Notified Area Committee v. Mukhram Sharma
Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply..........the prevention of food adulteration act (hereinafter referred to as the act) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for nine months and a fine of rs. 1,000/-, the sentence in default of payment of fine being further rigorous imprisonment for three months. in appeal the learned sessions judge, chandigarh, upheld the conviction of the petitioner but reduced the sentence awarded to him to rigorous imprisonment for six months, leaving intact the sentence imposed in default of payment of fine. the petitioner has now come up in revision to this court.2. learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the conviction is well based and not liable to be set aside. he urges, however, that the offence brought home to the petitioner is only a technical one in view of the fact that he is.....
Judgment:
ORDER

A.D. Koshal, J.

1. The petitioner runs a tea stall at Mani Majra. On the 29th of March, 1971, at about 2-15 P.M., Food Inspector Mohinder Singh (P.W. 1) went to the stall of the petitioner, found him in possession of about 15 kilograms of cow's boiled milk and took therefrom against payment a sample which was found by the Public Analyst to be deficient in milk fats to the extent of 30 per cent, and non-fatty milk solids to the extent of 32 per cent, judged by the prescribed standard. The trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner of an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for nine months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, the sentence in default of payment of fine being further rigorous imprisonment for three months. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, upheld the conviction of the petitioner but reduced the sentence awarded to him to rigorous imprisonment for six months, leaving intact the sentence imposed in default of payment of fine. The petitioner has now come up in revision to this Court.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner concedes that the conviction is well based and not liable to be set aside. He urges, however, that the offence brought home to the petitioner is only a technical one in view of the fact that he is carrying on the business of selling tea and meals only and not of selling milk as such and that, therefore, the punishment awarded to him should be nominal. With this contention I find myself in agreement. The fact that the petitioner does not sell milk as such but serves only tea and meals to his customers is not disputed on behalf of the State. And if that be so, the offence committed by him is merely technical in nature as held in Municipal Board, Faizabad v. Lal Chand Surajmal : AIR1964All199 and The Chairman. Jugsalai Notified Area Committee v. Mukhram Sharma : AIR1969Pat155 . Further the offence is covered by the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act and my finding that it is merely of a technical nature constitutes a special reason why only a nominal sentence would meet the ends of justice. The sentence is accordingly reduced to imprisonment already undergone by him which works out to rigorous imprisonment for 16 days, the fine being remitted in its entirety. The petition is accepted to that extent only, it being dismissed in so, far as it challenges the conviction of the petitioner.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //