JUDGMENT The applicant Ganesh Prasad being aggrieved by the judgment and finding dated 6.8.92 passed in Cr. Appeal N. 161/83 by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilapsur, confirming the judgment and finding dated 7.9.83 passed in Cr. Case No. 806/92 by the learned C.J.M., Bilaspur, convicting the applicant u/s 7 read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand only). The brief facts leading to the prosecution case are that on 17.12.81, the Food Inspector PW-1, R.R. Singh took a sample of ground nut oil from the shop of the applicant. The matter was reported to the local health authority and the part of the sample was sent for the chemical analysis. It was reported that the sample does not conform to the standard. The challan was filed against the present applicant and as he pleaded not guilty, the learned trial Court after framing the charge, recorded the evidence and after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the prosecution could successfully bring the guilt home. It accordingly as stated above awarded the sentence, which was confirmed in the appeal. Shri Manish Dutt, learned counsel for the applicant contended that in absence of any corroborative evidence supporting the case of PW-1, the learned Court below was wrong in relying upon the statement of the complainant. I am not impressed by this argument. The Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that corroboration is merely the supporting evidence. In a case where other witnesses do not support the food inspector but Court finds reasons to rely upon his solitary testimony, the conviction can be based upon it. Shri Dutt took me through evidence of PW-1 and with his best efforts was unable to convince me that the Court below committed any illegality in convicting the applicant. Even otherwise while exercising the Revisional jurisdiction this Court ordinarily would not interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court unless the same are shown to be perverse. It could not be shown that the findings are perverse. It was next contended by Shri Dutt that the offenee took place somewhere in 1981 and it would be useless to send the accused to jail after a period of 14 years. It could not be shown that the findings are perverse. It was next contended by Shri Dutt that the offenee took place somewhere in 1981 and it would be useless to send the accused to jail after a period of 14 years. Placing reliance upon AIR 1988 SC Page 1789, it was contended that even in a case where the offence was committed after the amendment in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone. The Supreme Court made the following observations :- "The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing the remaining period of the sentence, though ordinarily in an anti-social offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the Court should take strict view of such matter." He also placed reliance on unreported judgment given by this Court in Cr. Revision No. 253/91 Bindu and another v. State of M.P. decided on 24.9.94. This Court has reduced the period of the sentence. Similar is the view of this Court in the matter of Bhanwarlal v. State of M.P. 1995 Vol. II M.P. Weekly Note 92. Shri A.P. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submitted that even if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone the fine of Rs. 1,000/- deserves to be enhanced. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone but, however, the fine deserves to be enhanced. The revision is partly allowed. It is directed that the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone but the fine deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 2,000/-. Shri Dutt informs me that the appellant had already deposited Rs. 1,000/-. The balance amount be deposited within a period of two months. The revision is partly allowed on the question of sentence only to the extent indicated above.