V. B. BANSAL ( 1 ) DELHI Administration, through Legal Health Authority, filed a complaint against Vir Singh Chauhan for trial under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as "the Act") with the allegations that on 6. 8. 1986, at about 4. 30 p. m. , Food Inspector Pawan Vats while accompanied by other officials, visited M/s. Chauhan Dairy, 1867, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi and found Vir Singh Chauhan selling milk. There was no label declaration about the milk, i. e. whether it was cow milk or buffallow milk. Pawan Vats disclosed his identity and expressed his intention of taking a sample for analysis and after complying with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, purchased a sample of 750 mgs. of milk for which, he offered a sum of Rs. 3. 00, which, however was declined by Vir Singh Chauhan. The milk lying in the can was properly homegenised before taking the sample, which was divided in three equal parts and was poured into three clean and dry bottles. 20 drops of formaline were added in each of samples and same were properly marked, fastened and sealed as per the Act and Rules. Notice was served upon the accused, but he refused to sign the same and the other documents prepared at J the spot. One counter-part was deposited with the Public Analyst while two were deposited in the office. A report dated 7. 8. 1986 was received from the Public Analyst declaring the sample to be not confirming to the standards. The milk fat and milk solids not fat were found to be 5. 6% as against the prescribed minimum limit of 6. 0 percent and milk solid not fats 7. 3. % as against the minimum limit of 9. 0 percent. The plea taken up by the accused during trial was that no sample was purchased from him and he, in fact, was not present at Delhi on the date on which, the sample was stated to have been purchased. He had taken up the plea that in fact he was at Matiana in Shimla on that date. Learned trial court, however, convicted Vir Singh vide order dated 5. 11. 1988 and sentenced him to under go R. I. for 6 months with find of Rs. 2000. He had taken up the plea that in fact he was at Matiana in Shimla on that date. Learned trial court, however, convicted Vir Singh vide order dated 5. 11. 1988 and sentenced him to under go R. I. for 6 months with find of Rs. 2000. 00 and in default to under go S. I. for 2 months, vide order dated 7. 11. 1988. ( 2 ) VIR Singh Chauhan filed an appeal against his conviction, which came up before an Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi and was dismissed vide judgment dated 28. 10. 1993. Feeling aggrieved from his conviction and sentence, recorded by learned Metropolitan Magistrate and upheld by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Vir Singh Chauhan has filed this revision petition. ( 3 ) I have heard Shri K. B. Andley, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri O. P. Faizi, learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the record. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner does not contest the finding of the lower courts with regard to the conviction of the petitioner. It has, however, been submitted that this is an incident of the year 1986 and the petitioner has suffered the agony of trial for more than seven years. He has also submitted that the variation in the required percentage was marginally low and that the petitioner has been in custody since 28. 2. 1993, the date, on which the appeal was dismissed. He has also submitted that the amount of fine has already been deposited and that the mother of the petitioner is seriously ill. A prayer has, therefore, been made for leniency. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case Sarup Singh versus State [1994 (1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 28 (HC)]; Om Prakash versus State of M. P. [1992 (1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 126; State of M. P. versus Devi Singh [prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 297} and State versus Raghubir Singh 1988 (II) All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 86]. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to cite any judgment to indicate that sentence less than six months could not be awarded. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has been in custody since 28. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to cite any judgment to indicate that sentence less than six months could not be awarded. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has been in custody since 28. 10. 1993 and ends of justice, in my view, would be met if maintaining the fine, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. ( 6 ) AS a result, the Revision Petition is partly allowed and maintaining the conviction of the petitioner and the fine imposed on him, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone.