Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is a revision petition against the judgment dated 6.4.1991 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 9.2.1989 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh was dismissed. Vide order dated 9.2.1989, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh convicted the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 16.5.1986, at about 9.30 a.m. Food Inspector Vireshwar Singh inspected the shop of the petitioner. The shop was being run under the name of M/s. British Confectioners Cold Drinks, Booth No. 10, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh. Petitioner was found in possession of 5 kilograms of Ajwain kept for sale. Notice Ex. PA was served on the appellant. Ajwain was mixed and 600 grams of Ajwain was purchased by the Food Inspector on payment of Rs. 2.10. Receipt Ex. PB was signed by the petitioner. Ajwain was divided into three equal parts and put in three bottles. Paper-slips were pasted on the bottles. Memo Ex. PC was prepared. Requisite copies of Form- VII were prepared on the spot. One sealed bottle and one copy of Form-VII were sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst vide his report Ex. PD, stated that "Inorganic extraneous matter of the contents of the sample is 20.63 percent and organic extraneous matter of the contents is 4.69 per cent against the maximum prescribed standard of 3 per cent & 2 per cent respectively. Contents also contained a large number of slack small dead insects having wings". 3. Complaint Ex. PE was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. Charge under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was framed against the petitioner. 4. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box PW-1 Vireshwar Singh Food Inspector and PW-2 Ganga Yadav. Santosh Kumar, an independent witness, was given up by the prosecution as having been run over (won over ?) by the accused. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner had a right to have the contents of Ajwain re-analysed. Santosh Kumar, an independent witness, was given up by the prosecution as having been run over (won over ?) by the accused. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner had a right to have the contents of Ajwain re-analysed. Report of the Public Analyst was not supplied to the petitioner. PW-2 Ganga Yadav has stated in his testimony that the number of the sector of the shop in which it is situated, is not mentioned on the bottles, or the envelope which was sent to the petitioner. It has not been proved by the prosecution that the postal receipt was served on the petitioner. Petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that no independent corroboration has come to the official witnesses. Ajwain had been kept for the consumption of animals. 6. Learned counsel for the Union Territory of Chandigarh has stated that case of the prosecution is proved by the report of the Analyst and statements of the prosecution witnesses. PW-1 Food Inspector Vireshwar Singh and PW-2 Ganga Yadav have corroborated each other. There is no motive or grudge for the Food Inspector to falsely implicate the petitioner. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 8. Sample of Ajwain was taken from the shop of the appellant which was meant for human consumption. Documents Exhibits PA, PB and PC have been signed by the petitioner. At the time of signing these documents, petitioner should have put on them that Ajwain is kept by him for animal consumption. The documents mention that petitioner had kept Ajwain which is meant for human consumption, and not for animals. The plea taken by the petitioner that it was for animal consumption, is a belated plea. Documents Exhibits D1 and D2 show that the shop was being managed by Shakuntla Rani, wife of the petitioner. In his statement 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has stated that he was a retired person. It seems that the shop was opened by the petitioner in the name of his wife when he was serving with the Chandigarh Administration. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment dated 6.4.1991 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh qua conviction of the petitioner. It seems that the shop was opened by the petitioner in the name of his wife when he was serving with the Chandigarh Administration. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment dated 6.4.1991 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh qua conviction of the petitioner. At the time of inspection of the shop of the petitioner, i.e. on 16.5.1986, the petitioner was 61 years of age. As of today, he must be 79 years. No useful purpose would be served in sending him in prison at this stage. Revision petition was filed in this Court on 10.4.1991. Sword of conviction has been hanging over the head of the petitioner for the last 19 years. This itself is a sufficient punishment. Sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the extent already undergone. With the above observations, petition is dismissed.