JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. - Subash Chander was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to under go further R.I. for four months under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short the Act). Appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby the conviction and sentence were upheld. Hence, the Revision Petition. 2. Subash Chander-petitioner was found in possession of 5 Kgs. of cow milk for sale. He was served with the notice Ex. PA. Six hundred sixty Miligrams of cow milk was drawn as sample, from the drum carried by him, on payment of Rs. 2/- against receipt Ex. PB. The purchased milk was divided into three equal parts and put into three dry and clean bottles. Eighteen drops of formalin were added in each bottle as preservative. The bottles were then securely fastened and wrapped and sealed in accordance with the rules. The spot memo. Ex. PC was prepared. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, alongwith the copy of the memo. in sealed cover. A copy of the memo. in Form VII was also sent to the Public Analyst through registered post separately. After analysis, the sample was found adulterated and on the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the complaint was filed. 3. On the basis of pre-charge evidence, a prima facie case under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was made out against the accused-petitioner and he was charged thereunder. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the prosecution evidence sufficient to convict the petitioner and recorded the conviction as above. In appeal, the conviction and sentence was maintained. 5. I have heard Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Naresh Joshi, learned State counsel. 6. The submission made by Mr. Dhaliwal is that there is non-compliance with the provisions of Section 10 Clause 7 of the Act, which is mandatory. As such, the trial is vitiated. The sample has not been taken properly. There was no proper stirring of the milk before it was taken from the drum. No independent witness was joined by the Food Inspector. 7. Dhaliwal is that there is non-compliance with the provisions of Section 10 Clause 7 of the Act, which is mandatory. As such, the trial is vitiated. The sample has not been taken properly. There was no proper stirring of the milk before it was taken from the drum. No independent witness was joined by the Food Inspector. 7. All these submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are devoid of merit. It has come on the record that the Food Inspector before drawing the sample of milk had thoroughly stirred the milk. Similarly, there is no merit in the submission that no independent witness was joined. In fact, the requirement of the law is that sample should be taken in the presence of one or more witnesses. By joining Dr. Aggarwal and Mr. Hari Narain, the Food Inspector had complied with the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act. Public Analyst report Ex. PD indicates that the sample was found to be adultered i.e. milk solids not fat was 8 per cent deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. Thus, under these circumstances, the conviction recorded by the Courts below is hereby affirmed. 8. This case relates to the year 1984. The petitioner had already undergone the ignominy of protracted trial. He has already suffered the agony of protracted trial for about fifteen long years which is not a small period. Although minimum sentence to be imposed upon a convict is prescribed by the statute, yet having regard to the fundamental right of the accused to a speedy trial, the interest of justice would be met if lenient view is taken while considering the quantum of sentence, particularly where the convict-petitioner suffered the agony of trial of 15 years. 9. Resultantly, this revision petition is partly accepted. The substantive sentence of petitioner is reduced from six months to three months. However, the sentence of fine is maintained. It is also ordered that in default of payment of Rs. 1,000/-, if not paid as yet, the petitioner shall undergo further R.I. for 15 days. 10. With the above modification, this petition is disposed of. Petition partly allowed.