Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. This revision has been directed against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri dated 2nd of June, 1987, vide which the petitioner herein was held guilty for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for three months. This order of conviction and sentence has been upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, in an appeal that come to be filed by the petitioner, on Ist of July, 1987. 2. The brief facts of the case reveal that on 24th of September, 1980 at about 11 A.M. Government Food Inspector Harbhajan Singh accompanied by Dr. R.K. Jain and Deep Chand an employee of local health authority found the petitioner in possession of 32 Kgs. of Toria oil kept in a container for sale. A sample of 375 grams of oil was taken and after receipt of the report of Public Analyst, the petitioner was challaned and prosecution was launched against him under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, as the sample did not conform to the prescribed standard. 3. All that has been argued in support of this petition is that the petitioner was 73 years of age at the time of commission of offence and a period of 13 years has gone by and now the petitioner is about 86 years of age. It is argued that the petitioner has also undergone a protracted trial of 13 years and that the petitioner is a first offender and it would be too iniquitous at this stage to ask him to serve the sentence. It has also been argued that even though there may be minimum sentence prescribed for the offence, the offender can be let off on probation. For his aforesaid contention the counsel relies upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Crl. L.J. 1218, which was followed by single Judge of this Court in Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana, 1985(1) RCR(Crl.) 36 : 1985 CCC 452. 4. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not controverted by the State Counsel. L.J. 1218, which was followed by single Judge of this Court in Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana, 1985(1) RCR(Crl.) 36 : 1985 CCC 452. 4. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not controverted by the State Counsel. This Court is also of the view that the petitioner is now about 86 years of age and has already undergone protracted trial for 13 years. The ends of justice would be met if he is released on probation. Consequently, upholding the order of conviction against the petitioner, he is released on probation for a period of one year under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to keep peace and be of good behaviour on his furnishing bonds before the concerned Probation Officer within three weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order. He shall, however, pay the fine, if not already paid. In case the same is not paid he shall face the consequences as ordered by the Courts below. The revision stands disposed of accordingly. Revision partly allowed.