JUDGMENT Sabina, J.:- Jai Bhagwan-petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 vide judgment dated 24.9.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. Vide order dated 25.9.2007 he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court, Karnal vide judgment dated 6.5.20103. Hence, the present revision petition. 2. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 6.9.2000 Shri D.K. Sharma, Govt. Food Inspector, Karnal inspected the sweet shop of the appellant-accused and found that he had in his possession two kgs of dhania (coriander) powder in a time for public sale. He demanded a sample of 450 grams out of the tin by writing a notice on Form VI in presence of the witness and paid Rs.9/- for it. The sample of coriander was divided into three equal parts and kept in three separate bottles. The bottles were tightly stopped, labeled and sealed on the neck with the seal of medical officer. Thereafter, they were wrapped in strong thick paper whose ends were folded and pasted with gum. A slip issued by the local health authority, Karnal (hereinafter to be referred in LHA) and signatures of the said authority was affixed of each bottle from top to bottom and was also secured with a thread and sealed with seal of the Food Inspector and the Medical Officer. The thumb impressions and signatures of Jai Bhagwan were also obtained in the paper slip and sample. The signatures of the witness were also taken and the seal impressions were obtained on Form VII. One seal was sent for testing to the Public Analyst through Railway parcel. As per the report of the public Analyst and sample contained rice starch (foreign starch) whereas, it should have been free from the same and since the sample was not in a packed condition, iv contravened Sub Rule 24 of Rule 49 of the PFA Rules, 1955. One seal was sent for testing to the Public Analyst through Railway parcel. As per the report of the public Analyst and sample contained rice starch (foreign starch) whereas, it should have been free from the same and since the sample was not in a packed condition, iv contravened Sub Rule 24 of Rule 49 of the PFA Rules, 1955. The other two samples and two pockets of Form VII were deposited with the LHA in a sealed packed and the necessary complaint was filed.” 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 senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Risala v. State of Haryana, (O&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. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was a previous convict. The sample of Dhania Powder was drawn on 6.9.2000. Since then the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings. 5. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment is reduced to already undergone by him. The petitioner, who is in custody, be released forthwith subject to deposit of additional fine of Rs.5,000/-. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed of. ----------------