JUDGMENT 1. -This is a revision against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar dated 23.1.1999 by which he dismissed the appeal of the accused- petitioner and maintained his conviction and sentence for offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Briefly, on 26.10.1988 Food Inspector Beer Singh checked the accused-petitioner at Ganganagar. The petitioner was carrying milk for sale in two containers weighing about 42 kg. The inspector purchased 750 ml. milk as sample after paying its price to the petitioner. Then the sample was divided in three parts and poured in three bottles. Preservative was mixed and the bottles were sealed. Panchnama was prepared. Thereafter sanction was obtained from the competent authority and the accused-petitioner was prosecuted. Prosecution examined as many as three witnesses in support of its case. Sanction was proved and the accused petitioner was convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default he was ordered to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. As stated above on appeal same was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner first tried to convince that the evidence has not properly appreciated by the Courts below. But when his attention was drawn to Bharosi v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 WLN page 548 in which it was held that in revision appreciation of evidence can be done only in such cases where procedural errors have been committed or it appears that injustice has been done to the accused, he submitted that there was no such error. Therefore, in the case in hand evidence cannot be re-appreciated. 4. In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a lenient view may be taken by this Court as the accused- petitioner was caught on 26.10.1988 and has undergone mental tension as well as financial loss during the trial and the appeal. He submitted that this Court in such cases of long trials has taken lenient view. He also submitted that the accused-petitioner is in jail from 23.1.1999 and has undergone a month's imprisonment. According to him it is more than sufficient in this case. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the amount of fine should be increased. In my opinion the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is not acceptable. He also submitted that the accused-petitioner is in jail from 23.1.1999 and has undergone a month's imprisonment. According to him it is more than sufficient in this case. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the amount of fine should be increased. In my opinion the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is not acceptable. In many cases this Court-has taken view that in such cases when the accused- petitioners who were convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the cases have taken years and years and during long years the accused has undergone mental agony as well as financial loss, lenient view should be taken. Reference may be made to Ashok Kumar v. State of Raj.. 1998 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) page 159 . Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this case I am of the view that the period of sentence already undergone is sufficient in this case. 5. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act he is sentenced to the period already undergone. Sentence of fine is maintained. The petitioner is in custody and shall be released on payment of fine if not required in any other case.Revision partly allowed. *******