26-year delay in justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court reduces sentence in food adulteration case citing right to speedy trial
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Deepak Gupta maintained the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. However, the Court modified the sentence, reducing it to the period already undergone by the petitioner while enhancing the fine. The direction was issued in view of the protracted nature of proceedings, observing that “the sword of conviction kept on hanging on the head of the petitioner for the last 26 years.”
On 28.09.1999, a Government Food Inspector conducted an inspection of the petitioner’s premises in Hisar and discovered 20 kilograms of Dal Masur kept for public sale. A 600-gram sample was purchased and divided into three parts. One sealed sample, along with a slip from the Local Health Authority, was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana. The remaining two samples were deposited with the Local Health Authority. Upon analysis, it was found that the Dal Masur contained sunset yellow synthetic colouring, which is prohibited.
Subsequently, the petitioner was prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules framed thereunder. After trial, he was convicted on 20.10.2007 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar. The Court sentenced him to three months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹500, with a default sentence of one month. The petitioner paid the fine. His appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar on 07.01.2010.
The petitioner challenged the conviction through a criminal revision before the High Court. The revision was admitted on 12.01.2010, and the sentence was suspended pending adjudication.
The petitioner’s counsel raised several procedural challenges, including non-compliance with Rules 17, 18, 22, and 28 of the PFA Rules, and Section 13(2) of the PFA Act. He argued that the Public Analyst's report was not served upon the petitioner, thereby violating mandatory statutory requirements. It was further contended that the address on the postal receipt was incomplete and that there was no acknowledgment of receipt.
The prosecution produced a postal receipt and asserted that the envelope was never returned, thereby raising a presumption of service. Additionally, the forwarding memo contained the complete address. The petitioner had not raised any objection regarding non-service during trial or in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. These issues were raised for the first time during arguments.
It was also argued that Rule 22 was violated as only 200 grams of the sample was sent for analysis instead of the required 250 grams. The trial court, relying on State of Kerala v. Allassery Mohammed, held that Rule 22 was directory and that the Public Analyst had not reported any insufficiency in the sample quantity.
As for Rules 17 and 18, the trial court recorded that the procedures for dispatching the sample and forwarding the memorandum and seal impression were complied with. Although the Food Inspector did not specifically mention sending the specimen seal separately in his testimony, the Public Analyst’s report clearly recorded that the seal tallied with the specimen separately received. This was considered sufficient compliance, relying on State v. Jai Narain.
On the question of Rule 29, it was found that Dal Masur is not listed among food items that may contain permitted synthetic colouring. Thus, the addition of sunset yellow synthetic colour constituted a violation of the PFA Rules.
The petitioner also sought the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, or reduction of sentence in view of the long delay in proceedings. However, Section 20AA of the PFA Act explicitly excludes the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act unless the accused is under 18 years of age. The petitioner was 27 years old at the time of the offence.
The Court stated: “There is no illegality or perversity in the judgment of conviction as recorded by the trial Court, which has been correctly upheld by the appellate Court.”
Discussing the bar on probation, the Court recorded: “As such, he cannot be granted benefit of probation in view of Section 20AA of the PFA Act.”
The Court extensively discussed the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It observed: “The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished right guaranteed under the Constitution.”
It further stated: “Speedy trial is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Referring to Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana, the Court noted: “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 fault of the prosecution.”
The Court also cited:“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.”
In light of the protracted trial from 1999 to 2025 and the fact that the petitioner had already undergone part of the sentence and remained on bail for 15 years, the Court found it unnecessary to send him back to custody.
The Court held: “The impugned order of sentence as passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court, is hereby modified. The sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.”
It further ordered: “The sentence of fine as imposed upon the petitioner is increased from ₹500/- to ₹10,000/-, which is required to be deposited by him before Ld. CJM, Hisar, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the instant order.”
The Court clarified: “In case the enhanced fine is not deposited within the aforesaid period of four weeks as per this order, the present order reducing the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone, shall automatically stand vacated and in that eventuality, petitioner will have to undergo the actual sentence of 3 months apart from the sentence of default imposed by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar.”
“The present Criminal Revision stands disposed of accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
Case Title: Aditya Kumar v. State of Haryana
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:046022
Case Number: CRR-43-2010
Bench: Justice Deepak Gupta
[Read/Download order]
