In criminal revisions, while a conviction based on sound evidence and proper procedure is upheld, the court may reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, considering mitigating factors such as the long pendency of the case, the offender's good conduct, and the status of being a first-time offender.

JUDGMENT :

N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgement dated 25.01.2012 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh and the judgement of conviction dated 17.11.2009 and order of sentence dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Nuh, whereby, the petitioner was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for having contravened the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

2. Facts of the case are that Sh. Manbir Singh, then Government Food Inspector has filed the present complaint under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act. It was asserted that on 23.11.2000 at about 11.30 a.m., he accompanied by Dr. Vishesh Kumar, the then Medical Officer, General Hospital, Gurgaon inspected the premises of the accused Ashraf situated at village Malab and found that accused was having in his possession about 300 lts. mixed milk for public sale contained in iron drums and demanded a sample of mixed milk by giving him notice in writing on Form VI. 750 mls. Milk was purchased after mixing with plunger clockwise and anticlockwise on payment of Rs. 9/- which was divided into three equal parts. The bottles were stoppered tightly and sealed on the neck with the seal of Medical Officer. The bottles were labelled and wrapped in strong thick paper. The ends of the paper were pasted with gum. A paper slip bearing the code no. GN-DH-IFH-F-2-1338 and signature of local health authority Gurgaon was pasted on each bottle from bottom to top. Each bottle was secured by means of strong twine and sealed with the seal of the Medical Officer and Food Inspector at the spot. Signatures of the accused were also obtained in such manner that both the paper slip and the wrapper on each sealed bottle packet carry a part of his signature. One sealed bottle along with a memorandum in form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis in sealed bottles of sample alongwith two copies of memo in Form VII were deposited with the LHA on 29.11.1999 vide No. MS/2000/60 in a sealed packet. A copy of memorandum in form-VII and a specimen impression of seals used to seal the sample and packet/box were sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh separately by registered post vide post office receipt No. 2351 dated 24.11.2000. The certificate of the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh shows that the sample contained 8.1% of milk solids not fat against the minimum specified limited on 8.5% as laid down for mixed milk under item no. A-11.01.11 of the PFA Rules 1955, hence the same is adulterated and as such the present complaint was filed. After filing of complaint, the accused was ordered to be summoned vide order dated 28.03.2001.

3. Since, the case was ordered to be tried as a warrant case, in pre-charge evidence, the prosecution examined Mahabir Singh, GFI, PW1, and the pre-charge evidence was closed.

4. On appearance, a notice of accusation was served on the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 7 read with Section 16 of the Act, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In post charge evidence, the prosecution examined Mahabir Singh as PW1, Dr. S. P. Singh as PW2 and Dr. Vishesh Kumar as PW3 and, thereafter, the after charge evidence was closed.

6. The complainant also broug