JUDGMENT

Aman Chaudhary, J.

Present revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.03.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2002 rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month for the offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act').

2. The facts relevant to the present case are that on 29.5.2009 accused Amar Singh was intercepted by Govt. Food Inspector with Dr.Iqbal Singh, at near bypass Pehowa Road, Kaithal, having in possession about 70 liters of cow milk contained in three drums, for public sale. After due procedure, the samples were drawn and sealed. The same were sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Karnal on the same day for analysis. As per the report received therefrom, the milk was found to be adulterated, on the basis of which, Govt. Food Inspector, filed a complaint under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, a complaint against the petitioner. The accused-petitioner was charge sheeted for the said offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein the accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution levelled against him and pleaded his innocence. No evidence in defence was led by him.

4. On scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noticed above. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide judgment dated 16.02.2006. 5. Hence, the present revision petition.

6. Learned counsel on instructions submits that the petitioner does not wish to challenge the conviction but he prays for the reduction of his sentence to the period of about 2½ months, already undergone by him, on the ground that he is a poor person, the sole bread winner of his family, having wife and children, facing the mental agony of protracted trial since 1997 and not involved in any other case. He places reliance on Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana 1981 AIR (SC) 1723, Babu Ram v. State of Haryana 1987 SCC (Cri) 610 and Satbir v. State of Haryana 2019(3) RCR (Criminal) 354.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner, thus, he prays for the dismissal of the present revision petition. However, he is unable to controvert the submission regarding the involvement of the petitioner in any other case.

8. Though, the petitioner has given up challenge to the conviction and has prayed for reduction of his sentence as having been undergone, still having perused the judgment of the trial Court, wherein it is found that the evidence was thoroughly examined and it was rightly observed that the prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against the accused-petitioner based on the testimonies of the witnesses that on 22.05.1997, while the petitioner was selling cow milk, he was apprehended and sample of 750 Mls the milk was taken, which as per the Public Analyst report Ex.PD, was found to be adulterated as it was containing 7.9% milk solids not fact agains