Jagdish Ram v. State of Punjab, 2026

The petitioner was found in possession of approximately 1.5 kg of khoya intended for sale and human consumption. Laboratory analysis showed that the khoya contained only 4.95% milk fat, whereas the prescribed minimum standard was 20%. It was therefore treated as sub-standard/adulterated food. 

The trial court convicted Jagdish Ram under Sections 7/16 of the PFA Act on 25 September 2001 and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000, with additional imprisonment in default of payment.

His appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur, on 17 July 2008. He subsequently filed the criminal revision before the High Court. 

Before the High Court, the petitioner did not press the challenge to his conviction and instead requested reduction of his sentence, pointing to his age, clean antecedents, period already spent in custody and the prolonged pendency of the proceedings. 

However, the Court modified the sentence. The custody certificate showed that the petitioner had already undergone 2 months and 20 days of actual custody and had not been involved in any other criminal case. The offence dated back to 1998, while the revision had remained pending for many years. 

The Court held that Section 20AA of the PFA Act prevented the petitioner from obtaining probation, because he was well above 18 years of age when the offence was committed. Therefore, the relief was not granted on the basis of probation. 

Instead, the Court relied upon the constitutional importance of speedy and expeditious trial under Article 21, along with the mitigating circumstances arising from the extraordinary passage of time, the petitioner's clean record and the sentence already undergone. 

The six-month imprisonment was consequently reduced to the period already undergone, subject to an enhanced fine of ₹5,000 payable within two months. The Court also ordered discharge of the bail/surety bonds. 

The High Court did not disturb the finding of guilt. The petitioner himself confined his challenge before the High Court to the question of sentence. 

The Court recognized that Section 20AA of the PFA Act limits the availability of probation. Since the petitioner was approximately 37 years old when the offence occurred, probation could not be granted under the statutory exception. 

Nevertheless, the statutory restriction on probation did not prevent the Court from considering constitutional sentencing considerations arising from the prolonged criminal process.

Article 21 was central to the sentencing analysis. The Court reiterated that speedy and expeditious trial is an important component of the constitutional protection of life and personal liberty. 

The Court also referred to Article 39A, emphasizing the constitutional objective of equal justice and access to an expeditious and fair judicial process. 

The judgment relied on the principles recognized in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, as well as subsequent decisions including Nand Lal v. State of Haryana, Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana, Aditya Kumar v. State of Haryana, and the Supreme Court's 2026 decision in Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh. 

Importantly, the Court regarded prolonged criminal litigation itself as a relevant mitigating circumstance when moulding sentence, particularly where there was no subsequent criminal involvement and the offence was non-heinous. 

Thus, the judgment demonstrates a sentencing approach in which proportionality, passage of time, rehabilitation/clean antecedents and the constitutional right to speedy justice can be considered while determining the appropriate punishment, even though the conviction remains intact.