JUDGMENT Sabina, J.:- Ramesh Kumar-petitioner was convicted under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Section 7 of the said Act (for short- “the Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal vide judgment and order dated 22.12.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 12.7.2002. Hence, the present revision petition. 2. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are ; that on 23.2.1992 at about 11.30 a.m. then GFI R.D.Goel accompanied by Dr.Krishan Lal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Palwal intercepted the accused in New Colony, Palwal and found him in possession of about 40 to 50 kgs cow milk contained in two drums for public sale. GFI Sh.Goel desired to seize a sample from the accused to have the same analysed through Public Analyst, Haryana and for that purpose gave him a notice in writing on prescribed Form VI. Thereafter, he purchased 750 mls of milk after mixing the whole contents properly and making it uniform for analysis for Rs.4/- vide a separate receipt. The said purchased milk was divided in three equal parts and bottled in three dry, clean empty bottles. Two drops of formalin were added in each bottle as preservative. The bottles were stopped tightly and were sealed with the seal of Medical Officer. The bottles were then labeled and wrapped in strong thick paper. The paper slip bearing code number of Local Health Authority pasted on each bottle from top to bottom and the each bottle was secured by means of strong twine and sealed with the seals of Medical Officer and Food Inspector at the spot. The signature of the accused was obtained in such a manner that both the paper slip and the wrapper on each sealed bottle carry a part of his signature. At the time of seizing of the sample, one Pritam Lal was also present. One sealed bottle along with memo in Form VII was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed packet through railway parcel. At the time of seizing of the sample, one Pritam Lal was also present. One sealed bottle along with memo in Form VII was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed packet through railway parcel. The other two sealed bottles of sample along with two copies of memo in Form VII were deposited with LHA on 24.2.1992 in a sealed packet. A copy of memo in Form VII and specimen impression of the seals used to seal the sample and packet were sent to Public Analyst, Haryana separately by registered post. The certificate issued by Public Analyst, Haryana showed that milk solids not fat was 9% deficient of the maximum, prescribed standard and thus milk was found to be adulterated. On receiving the said report through LHA Palwal, GFI filed the present complaint to summon and prosecute the accused”. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment and has prayed that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Risala v. State of Haryana, (P&H) 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 239, wherein it was held that since the petitioner had suffered protracted trial of 24 years, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence as already undergone. However, the sentence of fine was enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 4. The petitioner was about 20 years old at the time of taking of the samples of the milk. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was a previous convict. The sample of milk was drawn on 23.2.1992. Since then the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings. In these circumstances, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to as already undergone by him and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of three months. Non deposit of fine shall render this revision petition as dismissed. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed of. ------------------