The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and undue delays can justify leniency in sentencing, as seen in the modification of the petitioner's sentence to time already served.

Judgment :

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.)

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 07.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar, in Criminal appeal No.22/2006, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated 31.03.2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar, in Criminal Original Case No.241/2002 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month’s SI.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 13.03.2002 complainant Food Inspector inspected the drums containing milk which was being carried by the petitioner on his motorcycle. Upon a suspicion, he purchased 750 ML milk on payment of Rs.6 to the petitioner. Thereafter, at the same time, a notice on form No.6 was given to the petitioner regarding sample collection of milk. After following due procedure, the samples were tested and the same were found to be adulterated. Upon which, a complaint was presented against the petitioner.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for the offences 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 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 offences under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated 31.03.2006. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 07.09.2007. 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 2002. 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 23 years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 20 days out of total sentence of six months SI. 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. 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 judg