A.S Nehra, J.:— The petitioner was convicted under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on 11-4-1986 by the Sub-Divisional Judieial Magistrate, Narwana and was setenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. — Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (II), Jind on 13-9-1986, hence, this revision petition.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as under:—
3. On 27-9-1984 at about 3.30 p.m, Government Food Inspector Ajmer Singh accompanied by Dr. Satbir Singh and also Raj Kumar inspected the premises of the accused and found him having in his possession 10 kgs. of cow milk for sale. A sample of 660 mls. of milk was taken according to the prescribed rules against payment of Rs. 2.60 One out of three sealed bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana who found the sample to be adulterated in as much as it was deficient by 10% in milk fat.
4. Mr. Bhoop Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not addressed any argument before me to assail the conviction of the petitioner. His solitary contention is that speedy trial is the essence of justice and inordinate delay in disposing of the case itself has caused sufficient agony to the Page: 162petitioner. He has further submitted that it is a fit case where he should not be sent to jail at this stage and sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period during which he remained confined. He contended that sample of milk was taken from the petitioner in the year 1984 and more than 9 years have elapsed that the revision petition is pending since 1986 and that this prolonged litigation itself is a ground for treating the petitioner in a lenient manner.
5. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Braham Dass v. State Of Himachal Pradesh. 1981 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Case 13. In this case, it was observed as under:—
“Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant had been acquitted by the trial court and the High Court while reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the Appellate Judge has not made clear reference to clause (f). The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing the remaining period of the sentence, though ordinarily in an anti-social offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the court should take strict view of such matter.”
6. In the instant case, the sample of the milk was taken in the year 1984 and for more than nine years the petitioner has faced this protracted litigation and has undergone sufficent mental harassment. So keeping in view the circumstances of the case, I hold that it is a fit case where no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail at this stage for undergoing the remaining period of sentence.
7. As a result, I maintain the conviction of the petitioner but limit the sentence of imprisonment to the period aleardy undergone by him. Sentence of fine, however, is maintained alongwith its default clause.