ORDER S.S. Grewal, J. - This revision petition has been filed by the appellant for setting aside the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority dated 11.9.1998 reducing his conviction and sentence awarded under Section 16(1A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by the learned trial Court. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Shri O.P. Gautam, Food Inspector duly appointed as such, inspected the shop of the accused under the name and style of M/s. R.K. Karyana Store, Booth No. 49, Sector 38 (West), Dadu Majra Colony, Chandigarh on 22.5.1992 at about 9 A.M. He was found to be having in his possession about 60 Kgs. of Arhar Dal for sale, which was kept in a bag. Food Inspector demanded a sample of the said Dal Arhar by giving notice Ex. PA in writing on form VI prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. He purchased 600 grams of Arhar Dal for the purpose of analysis from the vendor after making homogeneous for Rs. 9/- vide receipt Ex. PB. The said sample was dividing into three equal parts and was put into three dry and clean bottles. The bottles were labelled, stoppered, secured, fastened and then wrapped in a strong thick paper. The paper slip having S.No. 6061 and Code No. D-12/62 and signatures of Local Health Authority, Chandigarh was further wrapped around the sample from bottom to top pasted with the gum. The bottle was secured by means of strong twine thread and sealed with four distinct seals. The signatures of the vendor from whom the sample has been taken was affixed in such a manner that paper slip and the wrapper both carry a part of signatures. One sealed bottle of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh alongwith the copy of memorandum form VII in a sealed packet by hand. A copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the bottle was also given to the Public Analyst in a sealed envelope separately under intimation to the Local Health Authority. The remaining two sealed samples were handed over to the Local Authority, Chandigarh for custody alongwith the two copies of memorandum in a sealed cover. The sample was taken in the presence of the witnesses. 3. Prosecution examined PW1-O.P. Gautam, Food Inspector and closed the pre- charge evidence. The remaining two sealed samples were handed over to the Local Authority, Chandigarh for custody alongwith the two copies of memorandum in a sealed cover. The sample was taken in the presence of the witnesses. 3. Prosecution examined PW1-O.P. Gautam, Food Inspector and closed the pre- charge evidence. The accused was summoned and after holding the trial as warrant case, accused was charge sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined PW1-O.P. Gautam, Food Inspector, P.W. 2 Surinder Kumar, Assistant Office of Local Health Authority, and PW-3-Dr. Hargobind Singh and after tendering into evidence certain documents and closed its evidence. 5. The accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code He denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was offered an opportunity to lead evidence in defence, but he did not do so. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in this case Arhar Dal sample was taken on 22.5.1992 which was found to be adulterated as it was coloured with coaltar dye of yellow shade. Report of the Chemical Analyst Ex. PD shows the metanil yellow, a non-permitted coaltar dye of yellow shade was used. He has pointed out that this has not come in evidence that this was injurious to the health of the people. He has further argued that sample was taken on 22.5.1992 and accused was convicted on 5.3.1997 after trial and the appeal was dismissed on 11.9.1998. So, he is under mental pressure since 1992. Learned counsel has argued that sentence was reduced to nine moths from one year by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Learned counsel has further argued that in view of Ganesh Maity v. U.T. Chandigarh, 2003(1) RCR(Crl.) 418 sentence should be reduced to already undergone if he is not released on probation as he is a first offender. 8. Arhar dal has been coloured and the colour might be slightly harmful to the health of people for consuming the dal but as the petitioner has already suffered substantially during the period of trial for more than 10 years, then a lenient view may be taken. 9. Taking the totality of facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, the conviction of the appellant is maintained. 9. Taking the totality of facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, the conviction of the appellant is maintained. However, in the interest of justice, I reduce the sentence awarded to the petitioner to that of already undergone. The sentence of fine is upheld. Hence the appeal is disposed of with the above modification. Order accordingly.