1.5 Kg Of Khoya, 28 Years Of Litigation: P&H High Court Reduces Jail Term To Period Already Undergone In Food Adulteration Case

In a case that began with the seizure of 1.5 kilograms of khoya from a shop in Hoshiarpur in 1998, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reduced the substantive jail sentence of a now-elderly convict to the period he had already undergone, invoking the speedy trial under Article 21 to a conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 237].Justice Deepak Manchanda said,"Where an accused has lived for years, or even decades, under the shadow of criminal proceedings, facing the uncertainty of the outcome and the social stigma associated with such prosecution, the said experience constitutes a significant factor that deserves to be taken into account while moulding the sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that such a principle is particularly applicable in cases involving non-heinous offences, where the ends of justice can be adequately served by adopting a reformative and proportionate approach to sentencing rather than a purely retributive one."The Court was hearing a revision petition filed by Jagdish Ram, who had been convicted way back in 2001 under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the PFA Act and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment, after his khoya — meant for sale and human consumption, was found on analysis to contain only 4.95% milk fat, dramatically short of the statutorily prescribed minimum of 20%.On 28.08.1998, a food inspector, Dr. J.S. Bains, acting under the supervision of the District Health Officer, Hoshiarpur, inspected the petitioner's premises along with an independent witness and found him in possession of 1.5 kg of khoya intended for sale. The sample, on analysis, was found to contain milk fat of only 4.95% against the prescribed minimum of 20%, and was accordingly categorised as sub-standard.The trial Court convicted the petitioner on 25.09.2001 and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000, further imprisonment of two months being provided in default of payment. An appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur, was dismissed on 17.07.2008, after which the petitioner approached the High Court by way of the present revision petition, which remained pending for nearly 18 years, during which the sentence remained suspended pursuant to an order dated 03.10.2008.Counsel for the petitioner made it clear that the plea on merits was being given up, and confined the submission solely to the question of sentence. It was submitted that the petitioner, now of old age, was no longer engaged in the khoya trade, had already undergone about three months of incarceration, had clean antecedents with no involvement in any other criminal case, and had endured protracted criminal proceedings spanning more than 25 years. On instructions, it was urged that the conviction be maintained but the substantive sentence reduced to the period already undergone, subject to an enhanced fine. The custody certificate revealed that the petitioner had actually served only 2 months and 20 days of the six-month sentence, and was not involved in any other criminal case.The Court held that Section 20AA of the PFA Act bars the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, or Section 360 CrPC, to any person convicted under the Act unless he was below 18 years of age at the time of the offence. Since the petitioner was around 37 years old when the offence was committed in 1998 (his age being recorded as 40 at the time of conviction in 2001), he could not be granted the benefit of probation, nor could the sentence be reduced below the statutory minimum on ordinary sentencing principles.Turning to Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court held that the right to an expeditious and fair trial is one of the most valuable rights guaranteed to citizens, reinforced by Article 39A's guarantee of equal justice and free legal aid. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654, where, citing the long passage of time and absence of criminal antecedents, the sentence of an accused was similarly reduced. Holding that the considerable lapse of time, the petitioner's clean record since the offence, and the period of actual custody already undergone were all relevant mitigating circumstances, the Court maintained the conviction under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act but partly allowed the revision petition, reducing the jail sentence to the period already undergone, subject to an enhanced fine of Rs. 5,000 to be deposited with the trial Court within two months. The petitioner's bail bonds were discharged, with the Court clarifying that failure to deposit the enhanced fine within the stipulated period would revive the original jail sentence.Case Title: Jagdish Ram v. State of PunjabCounsel for the Respondent-State: Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, PunjabClick here to read order

1.5 Kg Of Khoya, 28 Years Of Litigation: P&H High Court Reduces Jail Term To Period Already Undergone In Food Adulteration Case

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

1.5 Kg Of Khoya, 28 Years Of Litigation: P&H High Court Reduces Jail Term To Period Already Undergone In Food Adulteration Case

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers