Shri Ram & Anr. v. State

1. The appeal has reached for hearing today. Regretfully, none appears for the appellant.

2. Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate on the panel of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee has been requested to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant.

3. Fee of learned Amicus Curiae Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate shall be paid by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

4. The impugned judgment and the evidence would reveal that the appellant was the son of the proprietor of M/s.Shri Ram Sweets.

5. Dated September 14, 1994 is Ex.PX: Delhi (Milk and Milk Products) Control Order prohibiting conversion of milk into milk products. 2013:DHC:4481

6. Record of the learned Trial Court would reveal that Ex.PX ceased to operate on October 01, 1994.

7. Complainant, Lal Singh PW-2, posted as Inspector Enforcement, has proved that in the presence of T.N.Meena, Food & Supply Officer PW- 6, 89 kg. and 350 gms. sweets; made from milk as also khoya and cottage cheese were recovered as per the seizure memo Ex.PW-2/A from the premises of M/s.Shri Ram Sweets, 26,-27, 60 feet road, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara. Sampling was done vide memo Ex.PW-5/A.

8. Having perused the testimony of the complainant Lal Singh PW-2, I find that the same has been corroborated by the other members of the raiding party i.e. Vijay Kumar Gaur PW-5, T.N.Meena PW-6, Neeraj Gupta PW-8 and K.K.Vadhawan PW-8.

9. Report Ex.PW-3/A, prepared by Ms.M.Srivastava, Public Analyst, Food Laboratory PW-3, would evidence that the samples sent to the laboratory, when tested, established that they were milk products.

10. Under the circumstances I am constrained to concur with the view taken by the learned Trial Judge, vide impugned decision dated March 10, 2004, that the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been made.

11. I find that vide order on sentence dated March 17, 2004, appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months and pay fine in sum of `10,000/-.

12. This I find is the minimum sentence prescribed by law.

13. However, it has to be kept in mind that the incident relates to September 17, 1994. The appellant unfortunately happened to be in the shop owned by his father. He was aged 22 years. The ban order lasted from September 14, 1999 till October 01, 1994. The commercial establishment owned by appellant’s father is a petty shop.

14. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that while maintaining the conviction of the appellant leniency needs to be shown to him keeping in view the law declared in the decision reported as AIR 1998 Sc 1789 Braham Dass Vs. State of H.P. and 1996(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Case 100 Veer Singh Chauhan Vs. State.

15. I dispose of the appeal maintaining the fine imposed upon the appellant but set aside the sentence to undergo imprisonment for three months. For record I note that the appellant has been on bail all throughout and has not undergone sentence for a single day.