JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was found guilty of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') by the trial court for having sold adulterated Goat's milk and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 month and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. On an appeal, the order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge Tonk. 3. Mr. Narendra Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the concurrent finding of fact as recorded by the lower court that the petitioner was found selling adulterated milk. He however, submitted that looking to the fact that the petitioner has already undergone the rigors of this litigation for the last about 15 or 16 years and has also undergone sentence of about 2 months. a lenient view of the matter be taken and the sentence already undergone by the petitioner be considered sufficient in this case. In this behalf the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 18/90 Prahlad v. State decided on 19.8.1990 and S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 119/90 Banshidhar v. State decided on 10.8.90 wherein, on similar facts, this court had taken the view that the sentence already undergone by the petitioners in those cases was considered sufficient punishment for the offence committed by them. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submitted that adulteration of food articles is an offence against the society at large and such offences should not be viewed lightly and as misplaced sympathy by this court it will increase the commission of such offences. I fully agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, but at the same time, the length of the litigation cannot also be overlooked. 5. In view of the fact that in the cases of milk adulteration, this court seems to have taken a lenient view, particularly in these cases where the convicted persons had suffered rigors of long litigation and have also undergone a part of sentence awarded to them, a lenient view in the present case should also be taken. 5. In view of the fact that in the cases of milk adulteration, this court seems to have taken a lenient view, particularly in these cases where the convicted persons had suffered rigors of long litigation and have also undergone a part of sentence awarded to them, a lenient view in the present case should also be taken. Therefore, while confirming the order of conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to the sentence already undergone with an increase in the amount of fine from Rs. 1,000/- to 3,000/- failing which the petitioner shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The amount be deposited within two months from day. 6. The petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition Disposed of Accordingly. *******