JUDGMENT As regards the evidence it is true that the independent witness Shambhulal has not supported the testimony of the Food Inspector, but the Food Inspector has proved with the support of the documents that he has purchased the milk after following the procedure prescribed under the Food Adulteration Act. Therefore, in this revision I do not want to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. As regards the extension of benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused, I do not see any error on that ground also because in his statement the accused has shown his ageas35 years in 1983. So in 1979 he may be about 30-31 years of age. However, the fact of the offence having been committed about 14 years back and the case remaining pending for this period for no fault of the applicant, makes out a case for taking a lenient view in the matter. It cannot be denied that such a long delay in" the disposal of the case has caused constant mental anguish to the applicant and he must also have suffered monetary loss for all these years during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, I propose to take a lenient view in the matter. Looking to the nature of the offence and the undue delay in the disposal of the case I am of the view that the applicant should not be sent to jail after a lapse of 14 years since the commission of the offence of selling adulterated milk. Therefore, the interest of justice shall be served if the applicant is awarded a sentence of payment of fine of Rs. 2,000/- only or in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of this Court in the State of M.P. v. Nannelal (1993 MPLJ, 345) and State of M.P. v. Chunnaram [1988 (2) MPWN 35]. Revision partly allowed.