ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 /401 of the CrPC, challenge has been made to the judgment dated 16.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Criminal appeal No.69/2002, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 15.10.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand in Criminal Regular Case No.105/1998 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 /16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo one year's simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 3 months'.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 13.08.1986, the Food Inspector inspected the shop M/s. Madan Lal Vinod Kumar Jain situated in Village Richhed and found petitioner Devilal selling food articles. Upon enquiry, he introduced himself as the owner of the shop and showed the licence. Upon a suspicion that the sesame seed oil (Tilli ka tel) kept in the shop is adulterated, sample of the same was taken following due procedure. The same was found adulterated in testing, upon which a complaint was presented against the petitioner after obtaining prosecution sanction.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 /16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offence, examined as many as 3 witnesses and exhibited various documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Two witnesses were examined in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 /16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated 15.10.1998. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 16.12.2002. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 1986. The petitioner was 50 years of age at that time. He was not having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against him. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct except the impugned judgment. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 37 years. The petitioner has remained in custody for some time after passing of the judgment in appeal. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits. However, he does not refute the fact that the petitioner is an old aged person. It was the first criminal case registered against the him and he had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has remained behind the bars for some time after passing of the judgment in appeal.

6. Si