In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reduced the sentence of Aditya Kumar in a food adulteration case, considering the 26-year-long legal ordeal he endured. Justice Deepak Gupta noted that though the minimum punishment is mandatory under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act), the delay in proceedings and the trauma faced by the petitioner demanded a humane approach.
“The sword of conviction kept on hanging on the head of the petitioner for the last 26 years,” the Court observed, underlining the mental agony caused by the prolonged legal battle.
Aditya Kumar was convicted in 2007 under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the PFA Act for possessing 20 kg of coloured masoor dal meant for public sale. The Public Analyst had reported the presence of sunset yellow synthetic colour, which was not permitted under Rule 23 of the PFA Rules.
Despite the petitioner’s arguments regarding alleged non-compliance with procedural rules (Rules 17, 18, 22, 28, and Section 13(2)), the Court upheld the conviction, stating:
“There is no illegality or perversity in the judgment of conviction as recorded by the trial Court, which has been correctly affirmed by the appellate Court.”
However, the Court took note of the fact that the revision plea, admitted in 2010, remained unheard for over 15 years due to pendency. During this entire period, the petitioner was on bail and had already served 7 days in custody.
Citing Supreme Court precedents and constitutional principles, the bench highlighted:
“Right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution.”
As the offence was committed in 1999 when the petitioner was 27 years old, and now he is 53, the Court found no justification in sending him back to jail. The petitioner was not eligible for probation under Section 20AA of the PFA Act as he was not below 18 years at the time of offence.
Thus, while maintaining the conviction, the High Court modified the sentence:
“The sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine is enhanced from ₹500 to ₹10,000, to be paid within four weeks.”
Failure to deposit the fine within the stipulated time would nullify the relief and require the petitioner to serve the original three-month sentence.
This judgment reaffirms the balance courts must maintain between legal rigidity and the constitutional guarantee of fair and timely justice.
Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Title: ADITYA KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA
