JUDGMENT 1. - The facts of the case reed not be given in detail as the learned counsel for the petitioner has limited his argument on the question of sentence only. The petitioner was prosecuted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It is alleged than on 14-12-1974, the Food Inspector Kan Singh took sample of the milk of the petitioner. The sample of the milk was found adulterated by the Public Analyst as it contained 19% added water. 2. The learned trial court, after completion of the trial, found the petitioner guilty under section-7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adult ration Act, as such, he was convicted and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/ vide judgment dated August 4, 1989. 3. On filing an appeal, the lower appellate court maintained the conviction of the petitioner under section-7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but the sentence was reduced to one month S.I. and a fine of Rs 1000/-. The sentence of one month imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine was also maintained vide judgment dated Sept. 24, 1991. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the incident is of the year 1974 when the sample was taken from the petitioner on 14-12-1974, which is prior to the amending act of 1976. The learned counsel submits that for more than 16 years, the petitioner has under gone the agony of protected trial. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a poor milk vendor, as such, the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already under-gone by him. Tie learned counsel referred a number of judgments of this Court, as well as, of the Supreme Court to show that in cases prior to the amending Act of 1976, the accused-persons have either been given the benefit of probation or the sentence of imprisonment has been reduced to the period already under-gone, which was few days in some cases. I need not refer those authorities as some of them have been referred in the judgment of lower appellate court. 5. I need not refer those authorities as some of them have been referred in the judgment of lower appellate court. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the incident relates to the year 1974 and the petitioners has suffered the agony of protected trial for a long period of 16 years and he happens to be a poor milk vendor, he should also be given similar treatment, which has been given by this Court in other cases. 6. Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already under gone by him. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. The sentence of imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine is also maintained. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has informed me that the fine has been deposited, as such, the petitioner shall be released forthwith, if not required in other case. *******