JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Sri Ganganagar dated 8.2.99 by which he confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioner awarded by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar which was to the extent of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo three month simple imprisonment for offence under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned P.P. for the State and have also perused the judgments of both the courts below. 3. The facts in brief are that on 29.5.92 at about 9.30 a.m. Mr. Kewal Krishan, Food Inspector intercepted the petitioner who was carrying cow's milk. The Inspector after making payment purchased a sample of milk from the petitioner before motbirs. He completed all the formalities. The sample was sent to the laboratory for analysis and it was found that it was adulterated. The Inspector obtained sanction from the Competent Authority and prosecuted the petitioner. During the trial the offence was proved and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above. On appeal the conviction and sentence were confirmed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the conviction on merits. He is right because in revisions, appreciation of evidence can be done only in such cases where the procedural errors occur or it appears that injustice has been done to the accused. Reference may be made to Bharosi v. State of Raj., WLN 1986 Page 548 . 5. I have read the judgments of both the courts. Prosecution has proved the case against the petitioner and the finding of the trial court has been confirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. When there is finding of fact of both the two courts and there is no procedural error and no injustice has been done against the petitioner I cannot interfere in the finding of the Courts below. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 8.2.99 and this court should take a lenient view as he has been facing trial for 7 years. He cited Ashok Kumar v. State of Raj. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 8.2.99 and this court should take a lenient view as he has been facing trial for 7 years. He cited Ashok Kumar v. State of Raj. 1998 Cr.LR Page 159 in which the sentence of 11 days was considered sufficient as the petitioner had undergone mental agony and financial losses because he was faced trial for 9 years. 7. Learned P.P. submitted that in case the sentence may be reduced the amount of fine may be increased. I do not agree with this contention. 8. Looking to all the facts and circumstances I am of the view that when the petitioner is in custody since 8.2.99 interest of justice will be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone.Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining 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.Revision Partly Allowed. *******