The court has the discretion to grant probation and consider the circumstances of the case in determining the quantum of sentence and fine.

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. Mr. S.C. Sibal, learned senior counsel has stated that in the present case, he will not be assailing the findings of the two Courts below and will accept his conviction and confine his arguments only to quantum of sentence and grant of probation. Mr. Sibal has stated that in the present case, occurrence pertains to year 1991 and the petitioner has also suffered a protracted trial of about 17 years. He has further stated that the petitioner has undergone about 15 days of his actual sentence. The petitioner was convicted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar on 25.11.1993 and was awarded one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short #28; 1954 Act#29;). In default of payment of fine he was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appeal preferred by petitioner was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, on 11.7.1996.

2. The case of prosecution in short is that the petitioner was apprehended on 25.9.1991 at 11.40 A.M. and was found in possession of 15 Kgs. of boiled Cows milk. Dr. Achhar Pal had purchased 750 ml. of boiled Cows milk. After following necessary formalities regarding the sample, the same was sent to Public Analyst. Public Analyst has found that contents of milk were deficient of milk fact by 10% and in milk solids not fat by 25% of the minimum prescribed standard. Two Courts below have relied upon the testimony of PW. 1 Dr. R.K. Jindal and PW. 4 Dr. A.P. Chowdary.

3. Mr. B.S. Rana, Advocate, assisting Mr. Sibal has stated that in the last 17 years, petitioner has not been found having committed any such offence. Taking into account protracted trial, antecedents of petitioner, no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars especially since the petitioner, as per head note of trial Court judgment, was 49 years old at the time of occurrence and now he is more than 65 years of age. The ends of justice will be met in case the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year to maintain good conduct and behaviour. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- and the same shall be treated as cost of litigation. He shall furnish bonds to this effect in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar, and deposit cost of litigation on or before 15.5.2008. Non-deposit of fine shall render the present revision petition as dismissed.

4. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed off.