JUDGMENT 1. - On April 25, 1972 at 7.30 a.m. Food Inspector PW 1 Jameel Ahmed found the accused carrying milk for sale. He purchased 660 milli litre of milk from the accused after giving notice. The milk was divided in three equal portions and was filled in three clean bottles. One of the bottle was given to the accused and the other was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst who found the sample of the milk to be adulterated. A complaint was filed in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sikar, which was later on transferred to the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. During the course of trial the accused submitted his own bottle for being sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory Calcutta. It was analysed by the Director of Food Laboratory at Calcutta as desired by the accused and the milk was found to be adulterated as it did not tally with the prescribed standard. 2. The learned Magistrate after trial found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- by his judgment dated September 12, 1975. 3. The aggrieved accused went up in appeal, but without any success. Hence this revision. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner taking into consideration the scope of revision and preponderance of evidence on the record has rightly not challenged the conviction on merits. The only point pressed before me is that the accused-petitioner is an agriculturist by profession. He has given up the business of selling milk from the date of his conviction by the trial court and has turned a new half in leaf and required is maintain a large family. He has been attending the court regularly during trial and a period of five years has elapsed in between, the date of the commission of the offence and the hearing of the revision petition. The offence committed by the accused comes under sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and as such the proviso to Section 16 of the aforesaid Act is attracted to it and the sentence may be reduced. 5. The offence committed by the accused comes under sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and as such the proviso to Section 16 of the aforesaid Act is attracted to it and the sentence may be reduced. 5. It is true that a lapse of a period of five years from the date of the commencement of the trial and the hearing of the revision is a relevant consideration, which in context of a particular case, can in conjunction with other circumstances a justify reduction of sentence, Lasting of criminal proceedings for a pretty long time not only causes mental worry but it also means considerable expenses apart from the attendance in the court. The hanging of a Damoclean sword on the head of accused and the prolonged uncertainly of the result of the case does obstruct the continuity of life. The offence committed by the petitioner was under sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 16 of the Act and was with respect to an article of food which was adulterated under sub-clause (1) of Clause (1) of Section 2 of the Act. The proviso to section 16 of the Act is, therefore, applicable. 6. The conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is maintained. However, the sentence awarded to him is reduced from six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of the payment of fine, the accused-petitioner shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. 7. With the above modification in the term of sentence the revision stands dismissed.Revision partly allowed. *******