The court modified the sentence for a food adulteration conviction due to the petitioner's age and lengthy trial, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial.

ORDER :

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the judgment dated 06.02.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 3, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No. 199/2008 (55/2003), whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 14.05.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Regular Case No. 78/1996 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 (1-A)(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo one year's simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's S.I.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 02.06.1988 the Food Inspector Rajendra Prasad Vasudev submitted a complaint before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh to the effect that on 24.02.1988, he purchased some sweets (Laddu) for a consideration of Rs.15/- from the shop of Vijay Kumar Surendra Kumar, situated at Gurudwara Gali of Hanumangarh Junction. After following due procedure, the samples were sent for testing and the same were found to be adulterated.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/17 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 the 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. 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(1-A)(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated 14.05.2003. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 06.02.2009. 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 1988. The petitioner was 26 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 35 years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of seven days out of total sentence of one year's S.I. 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 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. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in conce