Shri Ram & Anr. vs State
2013 Latest Caselaw 4033 Del

$~3
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                  Date of decision: September 09, 2013
+                            CRL.A.No.252/2004

      SHRI RAM & ANR.                                ..... Appellants
               Represented by:          Mr.Saahila Lamba, Advocate/
                                        Amicus Curiae

                                        versus

      STATE                                        ..... Respondent
                    Represented by:     Mr.Pawan Sharma, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)

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.




Crl.A.No.252/2004                                          Page 1 of 3
 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




Crl.A.No.252/2004                                          Page 2 of 3
 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.
16.      TCR be returned.

                                               PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

SEPTEMBER 09, 2013 rk