JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral).:- The petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the allegations that the sample of iodized salt taken from him on 29.6.1990, on analysis, was found to be free from iodine whereas it ought to contain minimum 15 PPM of iodine. Vide judgment and order dated 26.4.2000, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, convicted the petitioner for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, on 8.4.2003 by maintaining the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. He then filed the present revision, which was admitted on 15.5.2003 he was ordered to be released on bail. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner. However, he states that at the time of filing of the present revision, he was 73 years of age and this fact was mentioned in para 3 of the application for suspension of sentence. The petitioner is facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1990. When the petitioner was heard by the learned trial Court on the quantum of sentence, he had stated that he was a poor person, who was hard of hearing and was also not a previous convict. Therefore, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone by him. 3. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner be punished severely in order to deter other like minded persons in the society. 4. In Parshadi V State of Haryana 2004(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 360, the sentence of a similarly situated accused, who stood convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was reduced to that already undergone by him as he had been facing the trial for a period of fourteen years. However, his fine was enhanced. While doing so, the Court relied upon a number of judgments viz Mahavir V. State through Govt. However, his fine was enhanced. While doing so, the Court relied upon a number of judgments viz Mahavir V. State through Govt. Food Inspector, 2000(4) RCR(Crl.) 208, Behari Lal V. State of (U.T.) Chandigarh, 2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 222, Des Raj V. The State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR 689, Vijay Kumar V. The State of Haryana 1996(2) RCR(Crl.) 554 (P&H), Mohinder Singh V. State (Chandigarh Administration), 1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 168 (P&H) and Satpal V. State of Haryana, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 15 (P&H). 5. In Narinder Kumar V. State of Haryana [2008(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 1730] : 2008(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 288, this Court, once again, reduced the sentence of a similarly situated convict to that already undergone by him as the occurrence pertained to the year 1984. 6. It is a fact that out of the sentence of six months imposed upon him, the petitioner has undergone actual period of one month and seven days. At present, the petitioner must be in his eighties. He has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about 20 years. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, so as to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. Ends of justice would be amply met if the same is reduced to that already undergone by him and the fine of Rs.1000/- enhanced to Rs.11,000/-. 7. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the fine is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.11,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. But for the modification in the quantum of sentence of imprisonment and fine, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed. ----------------