JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. (Oral) - Hari Kishan through present Criminal Revision challenges order of conviction and sentence dated August 1, 1986 recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon holding him guilty of an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and ordering him to undergo RI for six months as also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months as also orders dated August 19, 1987 recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, thus, upholding the order of conviction and sentence, as mentioned above, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. 2. Briefly put, the prosecution case had been that on June 30, 1982 at about 6 p.m. H.R. Khanna, Government Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. D. Prashar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, inspected the shop of petitioner, situated at Subzi Mandi, Gurgaon and found him in possession of about 15 kgs. of Bura for sale. The Food Inspector, after giving notice to the petitioner to Form VI, purchased 600 grams of Bura for analysis on payment. The purchased quantity of Bura was divided into three equal parts and placed in three dry and clean bottles which were sealed. One sealed bottle was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh along with a memorandum in Form VII in a sealed cover and the other two sample bottles were handed over to the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst, after analysis, sent his report Ex.PD which showed that the sample contained total Sugar expressed as sucrose 95% against the minimum standard of 96.5%. After receipt of this report, complaint was presented in the Court by the Food Inspector under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the said Act for contravention of Section 7 of the said Act. 3-4. All that has been urged in support of this revision is that the prescribed standard of Bura being 96.5% and the sample showing 95% sucrose, it would be a case of marginal deficiency and inasmuch as petitioner herein has already had protracted trial, spanning over a period of 18 years, he should be given the benefit of probation contained in the Probation of Offenders Act. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner could not be controverted by the learned State counsel. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner could not be controverted by the learned State counsel. This Court is also of the view that since the petitioner has already undergone agony of protracted trial for 18 years and that there was marginal deficiency in the sample, he deserves to be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Maintaining order of conviction and sentence against the petitioner, this Court, however, orders that instead of serving substantive sentence, as ordered by the Court below, petitioner be let off on probation for a period of one year. He shall execute the bond accordingly as per the provisions of the said Act. The fine imposed by the Courts below is also maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that fine has already been paid. This statement of the counsel is also borne out of the record of the trial Court. Disposed of accordingly. Revision allowed.