ORDER V.K. Bali, J. - This revision has been directed against orders of conviction and sentence recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, dated October 11/14, 1986 whereby petitioner herein was sentenced to undergo RI for ten months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment thereof, to further undergo R.I. for five months. In an appeal preferred by the petitioner, learned Additional Sessions Judge Jind, vide order dated January 6, 1988, confirmed the orders as referred to above passed by the trial Magistrate. 2. Briefly put, the prosecution case had been that on February 17, 1984 at about 7 p.m. Govt. Food Inspector, Moti Ram, in the company of Dr. S.P. Aggarwal and one Suraj Bhan, intercepted the petitioner when he was found carrying 10 kgs. of cows milk in a drum on his cycle. The Food Inspector purchased required quantity of milk from the petitioner and sealed it in accordance with instructions. The Public Analyst vide report, Ex.PD reported that milk was adulterated inasmuch as the milk fat and milk solids not fat contents in it were 7.5 and 9 per cent respectively deficient of the minimum prescribed standards. 3. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined GFI Moti Ram as PW1 and Dr. S.P. Gupta, PW2 who fully supported its case. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the judgments recorded by the Courts below. Only half-hearted attempt has been made to ask for clean acquittal of the petitioner on the ground that the only independent witness, namely, Suraj Bhan, was not examined by the prosecution. He was given up as having been won over. Petitioner examined him as DW1, who completely demolished the prosecution case. In these circumstances the Court ought to have acquitted the petitioner, thus, contends the counsel. 5. I do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention of learned Counsel as, from the discussion made in the judgments of the Courts below, it transpires that when cross-examined, DW1 admitted his signatures on various documents which do lend support to the prosecution case that he was present but later on resiled, having been won over by the petitioner. Further there is nothing at all on records to suggest that Food Inspector or for that matter Dr. S.P. Gupta, who had accompanied the former, had any enmity with the petitioner. Further there is nothing at all on records to suggest that Food Inspector or for that matter Dr. S.P. Gupta, who had accompanied the former, had any enmity with the petitioner. If that be so, the Court is more inclined to believe the statements of prosecution witnesses for various other purposes as also for the purpose that DW1 was actually present when sample of milk was taken from the petitioner by the Food Inspector. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, further contends that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 1984, to be precise, February 17, 1984 and a period of 16 years has already gone by. Petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of one and half decades. Petitioner was 40 years of aged at the time of occurrence and further that he was already undergone sentence for a period of 25 days. For the contention that petitioner should be dealt with leniently in these circumstances his counsel relies upon Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) RCR 563. Learned State counsel has, of course, been able to defend this case on merits but practically has nothing to say insofar as reduction of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is concerned. 7. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met it sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone by him. So ordered. Order of payment of fine and so also consequences in default thereof are, however, maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that fine has already been paid. Disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.