JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, dated July 19, 1983 whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment, dated June 4, 1980 passed by Judicial Magistrate to (North), Kota who convicted the accused-petitioner under section 16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees 2,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on January 8, 1974 at 12 noon Ram Singh Solanki, Food Inspector, checked Abdul Wahid who was carrying cow milk for sale on a style and obtained sample from him in accordance with law after completing the necessary formalities. A complaint was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate (North) Kota as the sample was found to be adulterated by Public Analyst. The prosecution examined the Food Inspector and one more witness in support of the case. The trial court after assessing the evidence convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as indicated above. An appeal was filed which was called for hearing on July 19, 1981 on which date a warrant was ordered to be issued. 3. The learned Judge proceeded under section 386 Cr. P.C. and decided the appeal in the absence of the accused and his counsel. There was no lawyer present oil behalf of the Municipal Council also. The learned Judge adjudicated the appeal on merits and dismissed the appeal. Accused learnt about the disposal of his appeal. According to the memo, when warrant of arrest was returned on him and he was taken in judicial custody on March 12, 1985. He, therefore, filed this belated appeal along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act wherein he stated that he was instructed by his counsel that he will let him know the dale of hearing whenever the case comes, and he would have informed now about the decision on July 19, 1983 it was only when he was arrested in pursuance of warrant he learnt that his appeal has been dismissed. He,thereafter obtained the certified copy of the judgment and filed this revision petition. I condone the delay for the reasons mentioned in the application accompanied by the affidavit of Shameem Banu, wife of Abdul Wahid and listed the revision for hearing. He,thereafter obtained the certified copy of the judgment and filed this revision petition. I condone the delay for the reasons mentioned in the application accompanied by the affidavit of Shameem Banu, wife of Abdul Wahid and listed the revision for hearing. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that it was obligatory upon the court to have decided the appeal after hearing the counsel for the appellant as required by section 385 Cr. P C. and further that the court passed the order mechanically and though none was present in the court on behalf of either side. The learned Judge has shown the presence of the counsel for the appellant wrongly at the place where the presence is recorded, while a perusal of para 2 clearly discloses that he decided the appeal without hearing anybody. It is further contended that on merits also the petitioner has a good case. It is also prayed that in case this court does not interfere on merits or remand the case back for re-hearing in the appeal, the accused may be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act or that he may be released on the period 1,e has already been in custody which is more than a month and ten days now. Because this case relates to the year 1974 prior to the amendment of the law and in respect of carrying milk only. On behalf of the Municipal Council it is submitted that the judgments of the courts below warrant no interference. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the statements brought before me of PW 1 and PW 2. I do not agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding arrived at by the courts below are perverse or any other view of the matter would be taken. However, I would like to observe that it would have been better for 'he appellate court to have heard the learned counsel for the appellant or secured the attendance of the petitioner before deciding his appeal, particularly when it appears that the counsel for the appellant was very much present in the court as his attendance is shown in the judgment. But on the quantum of sentence I feel that it is a fit case where the sentence awarded should be reduced. But on the quantum of sentence I feel that it is a fit case where the sentence awarded should be reduced. This is a case which relates to a period prior to amendment and for the reasons to be recorded a lesser sentence can be imposed on the petitioner. The case relates to the year 1974 and the accused was a petty milk seller who used to carry milk on a cycle. It is past I 1 years that the accused had been dragged in this litigation and that by itself is a sufficient punishment to him. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I reduce the substantive sentence of the accused from one year to the period already undergone. However, I maintain the fine. Fine if not deposited shall be deposited within a period of two months from today. 6. The result is that this revision petition is partly allowed. Conviction of the petitioner is maintained but the sentence is reduced to one already undergone and sentence of fine is maintained. Two month's time is given to deposit the fine. The accused petitioner shall be released forth-with if not required in any other case.Revision partly allowed. *******