JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Rameshwar Lal is presently undergoing sentence in District Jail Chittorgarh. He was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh for offence under 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and .sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo three years simple imprisonment. He preferred appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh who dismissed the same and upheld conviction and sentence vide his judgment dated 10.2.99. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned P.P. for the State. 3. The facts in brief are that on 27.8.79 Mr. Samay Singh, Food Inspector Chittorgarh took sample of Ghee from the petitioner who was running a shop. The same was sent for chemical analysis and was found adulterated. Sanction was obtained from Local Authority and the petitioner was prosecuted and tried. He was convicted and sentenced as stated above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner and has simply prayed that the petitioner may be dealt with leniently and his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. The finding of guilt of the petitioner cannot be challenged as there is no procedural error or no injustice is caused to the accused petitioner. Learned Magistrate and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge have rightly convicted the accused petitioner. The only prayer about reduction of sentence has been considered by me. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Bhrahma Das v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1998 Cr.L.R. SC Page 570 as well as on Ashok Kumar v. State of Raj. 1998 Cr.L.R. page 59 . He submitted that the petitioner has undergone mental agony and financial loss right from 1979. The period of 20 years' tension is a very long. Petitioner has not only undergone mental pangs but has incurred financial losses as he faced the trial for last 20 years. It is a fit case in which lenient view should be taken. Learned PP does not oppose reduction of sentence. 6. In the facts and circumstances when the petitioner is in custody since 10.2.99 interest of justice will be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone. 7. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. It is a fit case in which lenient view should be taken. Learned PP does not oppose reduction of sentence. 6. In the facts and circumstances when the petitioner is in custody since 10.2.99 interest of justice will be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone. 7. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, he is sentenced to the period already undergone. Sentence of fine is maintained. Petitioner shall be released on payment of fine if not required in any other case.Petition Partly Allowed. *******