The court upheld the conviction for food adulteration but modified the sentence to time already served due to the lengthy trial and the petitioner's circumstances.

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 11.07.2005 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Phalodi in Criminal Appeal No.03/2005, whereby the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal against the judgment dated 10.02.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi in Criminal Case No.126/1998 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- 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 16.12.1997 at about 11 O’clock Food Inspector P.C. Harsh took samples of milk from the shop of the petitioner. After following due procedure, the samples were sent for examination and the same were found to be adulterated.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed the 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 three 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 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated 10.02.2005. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 11.07.2005.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 1997. 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 28 years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of seventeen days out of total sentence of six months’ 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 partly allowed 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 concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the case pertains to the year 1997 and much time has gone by since then. The trial took 7 years to culminate and it took further 1 year in decision of the appeal. Thereafter, this appeal is pending before this court for last 20 years. The right to speedy