Judgment Baldev Singh, J. 1. Sher Singh (petitioner) has filed this revision petition against the judgment dated July 19, 1990 passed by Mr. B.M. Bajaj, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul. 2. Mr. V.P. Bishnoi, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul - vide judgment dated May 12, 1989 had convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and had sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 3. The Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, on appeal, had maintained the judgment of conviction, but reduced the sentence from rigorous imprisonment for nine months to rigorous imprisonment for six months, keeping the sentence of fine and its default clause intact. 4. The then Food Inspector, Mahendergarh, on November 17, 1985 found the petitioner in possession of ten kilograms "Atta" (wheat) for sale. Sample was taken out and on analysis, it was found adulterated as it gave ash insoluble in dil Hol 0.18% against the maximum prescribed standard of 0.15% grit 0.10% and its taste was also gritty hence, the complaint was filed 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgments of conviction passed by the Courts below. He argued that the petitioner is suffering from the agony of this case since November 17, 1985, when the sample was taken from him and keeping in view, that he has faced protracted trial for more than nineteen years, he be released on probation of good conduct. The learned Counsel for the petitioner cited the case of Hardwari Lal v. State of Haryana, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 10. The sample in this case was taken nineteen years back. The sentence was reduced to already undergone. It was observed that minimum punishment of six months has been provided under the Act. However, if an accused suffers mental agony of prolonged trial, then he can be compensated in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He also cited the case of Gurdev Singh v. U.T., Chandigarh, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 121. In this case, the accused was convicted under the Act. He has faced the agony of trial for eighteen years. However, if an accused suffers mental agony of prolonged trial, then he can be compensated in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He also cited the case of Gurdev Singh v. U.T., Chandigarh, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 121. In this case, the accused was convicted under the Act. He has faced the agony of trial for eighteen years. Sentence was reduced to already undergone keeping in view right of the accused of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was held down in the case of Ram Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 242 that though minimum sentence is prescribed under the Act, still benefit of probation can be given to an accused when he has faced trial for eighteen years. The case of Suraj Bhan v. State of Haryana, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 332 was also referred to. Conviction was recorded under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act. The accused had faced trial for seventeen years. Sentence was reduced to already undergone. In a recent judgment of our High Court in the case of Ramesh Chand alias Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2005(1) RCR (Criminal) 332, conviction of the accused was kept in tact, but keeping in view that he faced protracted trial for eighteen years, he was given the benefit of probation, even though minimum sentence has been prescribed under the Act. All these authorities squarely apply to the case in hand. 6. The accused-petitioner is a petty shop-keeper. The ends of justice will be met if he is released on probation, of good conduct under the Probation of Offenders Act. The judgment of conviction is therefore maintained, but the order of sentence is modified to the extent that he would be released on probation on his furnishing the requisite bonds for a period of one year in the trial Court within a period of fortnight from the date he receives certified copy of this judgment. 7. This revision petition is partly allowed in the manner indicated above.