Punjab & Haryana HC Cuts Jail Term for Khoya Seller After 28-Year Ordeal, Raises Fine Under Food Adulteration Law

Conviction maintained under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but six-month rigorous imprisonment reduced to time already served; court holds prolonged litigation is a mitigating factor.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has partly allowed a criminal revision petition filed by Jagdish Ram, a khoya seller from Hoshiarpur district, who was convicted in 2001 for possessing adulterated khoya for sale. Justice Deepak Manchanda, sitting singly at Chandigarh, maintained the conviction under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, but reduced the six-month rigorous imprisonment to the approximately two months and twenty days that Jagdish Ram had already undergone in custody. The fine was enhanced from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 5,000. The court reasoned that Article 21 of the Constitution — which guarantees the right to a speedy and expeditious trial — is a relevant consideration while moulding sentence, particularly in a case where the accused had spent over 28 years under the shadow of criminal proceedings for a non-heinous offence involving just 1.5 kilograms of sub-standard khoya.

From a 1998 Inspection to Three Rounds of Courts

The case began on 28 August 1998, when Dr. J.S. Bains, working under the supervision of Dr. Parveen Taneja, District Health Officer, Hoshiarpur, inspected the premises of Jagdish Ram at around 1.30 p.m. An independent witness, Kapil Kumar, was present. The inspecting team found Jagdish Ram in possession of 1.5 kilograms of khoya intended for sale and human consumption.

An analyst report subsequently revealed that the milk fat content in the khoya was only 4.95%, far below the minimum prescribed statutory standard of 20.0%. The product was categorised as sub-standard, and a complaint was filed under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

The trial court convicted Jagdish Ram on 25 September 2001 and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000, with a default rigorous imprisonment of two months. He challenged this before the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur, which dismissed the appeal on 17 July 2008, confirming the trial court's order. Jagdish Ram then filed the present revision petition before the High Court. This Court suspended the sentence on 3 October 2008, and the petitioner remained on bail for over 18 years pending the revision.

Counsel Abandons Merits, Argues Solely on Sentence

Before the High Court, counsel for Jagdish Ram, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Gupta, expressly gave up any challenge to the merits of the conviction. His only submission concerned the sentence. He pointed to several factors: the petitioner's old age, the fact that he was no longer engaged in the food business, his clean antecedents and absence from any other criminal case, and the protracted criminal proceedings spanning more than 25 years.

Counsel urged the court to reduce the remaining jail term to the period already undergone, while accepting an enhancement of the fine, on the ground that this would meet the ends of justice. The State, represented by Mr. Raj Karan Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, opposed the prayer and filed a custody certificate dated 13 July 2026, confirming that the petitioner had actually served two months and twenty days of the substantive sentence.

Why Probation Was Not Available

Before addressing the prayer for sentence reduction, Justice Manchanda addressed a threshold issue: whether the petitioner could be released on probation instead of undergoing the remaining jail term.

Section 20AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 expressly provides that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply to a person convicted under the PFA Act, unless that person is under 18 years of age at the time of the offence. As per the custody certificate, Jagdish Ram was recorded to be 40 years old at the time of conviction in 2001, which placed him at approximately 37 years of age when the offence was committed in 1998. He was therefore ineligible for probation.

The court also noted a settled legal position: that the minimum sentence prescribed under the PFA Act cannot be reduced below the statutory floor. Neither probation nor a sentence shorter than the prescribed minimum was permissible as a matter of course.

Article 21 and the Right to Speedy Trial as a Sentencing Factor

The more substantive question was whether the extraordinary delay in the proceedings could legitimately influence the quantum of sentence, even where the statutory minimum cannot formally be reduced. Justice Manchanda held that it could.

The court observed that the right to an expeditious and fair trial is part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 39A of the Constitution separately recognises the right to equal justice and access to legal aid. The court noted that the judgment in State of Haryana v. Yad Ram, 987(1) RCR (Criminal) 264, which dealt with the PFA Act, had not considered the effect of Article 21. The present case, the court held, required that constitutional dimension to be brought in.

The court drew on the Supreme Court's recognition of the right to speedy trial in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81. It also relied on two earlier Punjab and Haryana High Court decisions that had followed this line: Nand Lal v. State of Haryana, (1992) 1 Rec. Cri R. 82, and Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994(1) RCR 160. A co-ordinate bench of this court had also granted the same relief in a comparable case: Aditya Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC Online P&H 2189, relying on the same line of authority.

The court then referred to a recent Supreme Court decision in Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654, where the sentence had been reduced having regard to the long lapse of time and other mitigating factors. The relevant extract quoted by the court stated that “the long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence.”

Mitigating Circumstances Weighed

Justice Manchanda identified several factors that warranted sentence modification in this case.

The offence was committed in 1998 and involved 1.5 kilograms of khoya found in a tray intended for public sale, with a milk fat content of 4.95% against a prescribed minimum of 20.0%. The product was sub-standard but not categorised as a heinous or dangerous adulteration. The petitioner had already served two months and twenty days of the six-month sentence. He had been on bail since October 2008 — over 18 years — without involvement in any other criminal case during that period. His counsel represented that he was no longer in the food trade. His age at the time of the offence was approximately 37 years, and he was described as being of old age at the time of hearing.

The court observed that an accused who lives for years or decades under the shadow of criminal proceedings, facing social stigma and uncertainty, has undergone a form of hardship that is itself a relevant mitigating circumstance in moulding the sentence. This principle, the court held, applies with particular force in cases involving non-heinous offences where a reformative and proportionate approach to sentencing is consistent with the ends of justice.

Weighing all these factors, the court concluded that the interests of justice would be served by reducing the remaining jail sentence to nil while enhancing the financial penalty.

Order

Justice Deepak Manchanda partly allowed CRR No. 1714 of 2008 on 16 July 2026. The conviction under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was maintained without alteration.

The jail sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner, that is, two months and twenty days. The fine was enhanced from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 5,000, to be deposited with the concerned trial court within two months from the date of the order.

The court clarified that if the enhanced fine of Rs. 5,000 is not deposited within the two-month period, the original jail sentence awarded by the courts below will revive and the petitioner will be required to serve the remaining term.

The bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by the petitioner were discharged. Any pending miscellaneous application was also disposed of.