JUDGMENT R.C. Kathuria, J. - Durga, petitioner-accused has filed the present criminal revision against the judgment dated 5.1.1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby order dated 15.10.1988 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh convicting the petitioner-accused under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months was upheld. 2. Put shortly, the facts of the case are that on 28.1.1986 at 12.15 p.m., Government Food Inspector O.P. Gautam in the presence of Hari Singh inspected the canteen located on Plot No. 14, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, which was owned by one Dev. Accused Durga, who was employed as a servant of Dev, was found present in the canteen. On inspection, the Food Inspector found him in possession of 15 Kgs. of standard milk in Patila for public sale. After serving notice on him on Form, Ex. PA, 700 mls. of milk was purchased by him for analysis from the accused against the payment of Rs. 4/- vide receipt Ex. PB issued by the accused. The milk purchased was divided and poured in three clean and dry bottles in equal parts. Eighteen drops of formalin 40% were added as preservative in each bottle. Thereafter, these bottles were stoppered, labelled, securely fastened and then wrapped in strong and thick paper separately in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Seizure memo Ex. PC was prepared at the spot which was signed by the Food Inspector and other witnesses as well as attested by the accused. Out of the three bottles, two sealed bottles were deposited with the local Health Authority, Chandigarh. The third sealed bottle was sent for analysis to Public Analyst, Chandigarh, who on analysis, vide his report Ex. PD found the milk to be adulterated as it was deficient in Milk Fat 4% and Milk Solid Not-Fat 20% of the minimum prescribed standard. On receipt of the said report, the complaint was filed against the petitioner-Durga and his co-accused, Dev, who was the owner of the said canteen. After recording the pre-charge evidence, charges were framed against both of them to which they pleaded not guilty. 3. On receipt of the said report, the complaint was filed against the petitioner-Durga and his co-accused, Dev, who was the owner of the said canteen. After recording the pre-charge evidence, charges were framed against both of them to which they pleaded not guilty. 3. To support the case set up by the complainant apart from Food Inspector O.P. Gautam (PW-1), Gangai Yadav (PW-2), official of the Local Health Authority, was examined. The documents relating to the despatch of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused were also placed on record. Food Inspector had proved the notice to the complainant Ex. PA, receipt Ex. PB, spot memo Ex. PC and report of Public Analyst Ex. PD. 4. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the accused denied the prosecution allegations completely. Accused-Durga took the stand that he was not working as a servant in the canteen in question. While Dev took up the plea that he was not owner of the said canteen and has no connection with the said canteen. Thus, they pleaded that they had been falsely implicated in this case by the Food Inspector. In support of the stand taken, Nathu Singh (DW-1), was examined by them. In addition licence Ex. DA was produced by Durga in order to show that he was running Booth No. 10 located in Industrial Area, Chandigarh and as such has no connection with the canteen in question. 5. The trial Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence accepted the evidence of the complainant and while rejecting the defence version with regard to Durga, petitioner-accused convicted and sentenced him as noted above. At the same time, as Dev was not present at the time when the canteen was inspected by the Food Inspector and sample in question was taken he was acquitted. Aggrieved by the order so passed, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal bearing No. 44, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh affirming the order of the trial Magistrate. Hence, the present criminal revision. 6. Food Inspector O.P. Gautam had given a detailed statement in Court with regard to his visit to the canteen of the accused on 28.1.1986 at 12.15 p.m. located in Industrial Area, Chandigarh in the presence of Hari Singh. According to him accused-Durga, who was present there found in possession of 15 Kgs. Hence, the present criminal revision. 6. Food Inspector O.P. Gautam had given a detailed statement in Court with regard to his visit to the canteen of the accused on 28.1.1986 at 12.15 p.m. located in Industrial Area, Chandigarh in the presence of Hari Singh. According to him accused-Durga, who was present there found in possession of 15 Kgs. of standard milk which was kept by him in Patila for public sale. The milk was thereafter stirred and made it homogeneous and then purchased 700 mls. of milk on payment of Rs. 4/- vide receipt for analysis. He had added 18 drops of Formalin 40% in each bottle as preservative and thereafter bottles were got sealed in accordance with the prescribed procedure. He had prepared the spot memo Ex. PC which was attested by the accused and the witnesses. He had also placed on record the report of the Public Analyst, Ex. PD, who on analysis had declared the sample to be adulterated. Gangai Yadav (PW-2) had produced the copy of the letter Ex. PW-2/B containing the report of the Public Analyst Ex. PW-2/C which was received undelivered. The accused in his statement had given his own version but at the same time admitted that his signatures were obtained on the papers by the Food Inspector. Thus, the version that he was summoned from Booth No. 10 where he was running a shop as such had been rightly rejected by the trial Court in view of the categorical statement of the Food Inspector which is worthy of reliance. Faced with the above evidence, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused prayed for leniency in the matter of sentence and reducing the same to the already undergone by the petitioner as the accused has been facing prosecution for the last more than 16 years as the sample in question was taken by the Food Inspector on 28.1.1986. The State counsel had opposed the prayer made in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 16 of the Act. 7. The State counsel had opposed the prayer made in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 16 of the Act. 7. In order to appreciate the submissions made, notice has to be taken of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, which expressly provide that when the offence is proved under Section 16(1)(a) to (g) of the Act, then the convict in addition to the penalty, to which he may be liable under the provisions of Section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of the proviso of this Section mellow down the rigours of sentence so provided. It is for that reason the necessary provisions have to be noticed which read as under :- "16. Penalties. - xx xx xx xx Provided that - (i) if the offence is under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) and is with respect to an article of food, being primary food, which is adulterated due to human agency or is with respect to an article of food which is misbranded within the meaning of sub-clause (k) of clause (ix) of Section 2; or (ii) if the offence is under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), but not being an offence with respect to the contravention of any rule made under clause (a) or clause (g) of sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 or under clause (b) of sub- section (2) of section 24, the court may for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years, and with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees : Provided further that if the offence is under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) and is with respect to the contravention of any rule made under clause (a) or clause (g) of sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 or under clause (b) of sub- section (2) of Section 24, the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees." 9. In view of the mandate of law noticed above, the question to be considered is whether less than minimum sentence can be awarded to the person where the milk found in his possession has been declared to be adulterated and on that account he stands convicted. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused in support of the stand taken by him had referred to the decision rendered in Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988(II) FAC 13 (SC), wherein after taking notice of the fact that occurrence had taken place more than 8 years back and that the appellant had already suffered a part of the imprisonment, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone while sustaining the fine with the default sentence. In Bhagwan Dass Motu Lal Navalani v. State of Maharashtra, 1988(II) FAC 2, the appellant was convicted about 15 years back for non- compliance of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. As the appellant had remained in jail for some time, the sentence awarded to him was reduced to already undergone by him while maintaining the sentence of fine. 10. In Harnam Dass v. State (Food Inspector), 1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 1, notice was taken of the fact that accused had faced trial for 10 years and for that reason the sentence was reduced to already undergone by him. Similar approach was adopted in Criminal Revision No. 1998 of 2002, Lachhman Dass v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 1.10.2002; Hardwari Lal v. State of Haryana, 2003(1) RCR(Crl.) 10; Gurdev Singh v. U.T., Chandigarh, 2003(1) RCR(Crl.) 121. 11. The question that what should be the approach for imposition of sentence came up for consideration by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Haryana v. Yad Ram, 1987 Cr.L.J. 79. Taking into account the object of legislative measure for providing harsh and severe punishment, it was observed that when accused have been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Act the minimum sentence ought to be imposed by the Courts. In the above mentioned case, after setting aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, Yad Ram was awarded the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence for which he was convicted. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 12. 1,000/- for the offence for which he was convicted. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 12. In the latest pronouncement in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 611, it was observed that where the mandate of law is clear and unambiguous, upon conviction the Court has no option but to pass the sentence as provided under the statute. While dealing with the question of sentence notice was also taken of the cases where only sentence of fine was imposed without sending the accused to jail and it was observed that perusal of the aforesaid judgments indicates that in none of these cases the Court considered the effect of provisions of law prescribing the minimum sentence upon conviction under the Act. Accordingly, minimum sentence provided under the statute was imposed. Dealing with the issue of requirement of statute for imposing the minimum sentence, the Court has to record special reasons. It was observed that "special reasons" have to be distinguished from good or other reasons. Similarly pendency of criminal case for over a period of time can also not be treated as a special reason. Prolonged litigation in the country is admittedly a general reason in criminal cases. 13. In Lashkri Ram v. State of H.P., 2001 S.C.C. (Cri.) 111, the milk sold by the appellant was found to contain fat as well as solid not fat contents below the prescribed standard. After considering the circumstances of the case the sentence was reduced to the minimum provided under the Act of 1954. Similar view was taken in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 SCC (Cri.) 120. In State of Haryana v. Pawan Kumar, 1998 SCC (Cri.) 1510, the High Court taking into account that since the offence was committed more than 16 years have elapsed had reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which was less than the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act. After setting aside the order of the High Court substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months was imposed upon the accused. 14. The accused in the present case was found in possession of milk for sale in his canteen. After setting aside the order of the High Court substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months was imposed upon the accused. 14. The accused in the present case was found in possession of milk for sale in his canteen. Merely because the petitioner had to face trial for more than 16 years under the circumstances of the case cannot be taken into account to warrant leniency in the matter of sentence because once the offence is held to have been proved appropriate sentence as prescribed under the Act has to be imposed. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.