JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 2. The present revision petition has been filed against the orders of the Court below whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 50(1) read with Section 16(1) (A)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months S.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenges the factum of conviction. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that more than one months sentence has already been undergone by the petitioner and instead of requiring the accused petitioner to serve out the complete sentence, it would be appropriate that accused petitioner may be released for the period already undergone. 4. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that accused petitioner was sentenced in the year 2000, this Court feels persuaded that instead of maintaining sentences of imprisonment, as awarded by the Court below, the period of jail sentence as awarded by the Court below is reduced to the period already undergone and he will be released forth-with. 5. In the result, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, the revision is partly allowed as indicated above. *******