Judgment Ram Chand Gupta, J. 1. The present revision petition has been rendered assailing conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, dated 21.11.1997, vide which he was convicted for offence under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and against judgment dated 22.1.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide which appeal filed by him against the said judgment of conviction and sentence was dismissed except with modification on the point of sentence, i.e., substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year was reduced to six months. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 23.8.1990, PW1 C.L. Sikri, complainant, Food Inspector alongwith PW2 Dr. V.S. Dhaka, District Health Officer and in the presence of one witness of the public Shri Bhim Sain intercepted the present revision- petitioner near Mukeshwar Mandir, Kaithal, while he was carrying 35 litres of cows milk for public sale in two canes 750 ml of cows milk was purchased for sample on payment of Rs. 3.50/- and the sample was drawn in consonance with the provisions and the rules of the Act. The sample was sent to public analyst, who vide report Ex. PE found that the same contain milk fat 3.6% and milk solids not fat was 7.4% and, hence, milk fat was 10% deficient and milk solids fat was 13% deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. 4. Prosecution has examined Sh. C.L. Sikri, Food Inspector, PW1, Dr. V.S. Dhaka, as PW2, and Smt. Darshna Rani, Clerk of the Local Health authority as PW3 and the witness of public was given up as won over, besides placing on record documentary evidence, i.e., Ex. PA notice, Ex. PB Receipt, Ex. PC Spot Memo, Ex. PD copy of postal receipt, Ex. PE Report of public Analyst, Ex. PF Complaint, Ex. PG Copy of letter, Ex. PH Acknowledgement and Ex. PX Postal receipt. 5. PA notice, Ex. PB Receipt, Ex. PC Spot Memo, Ex. PD copy of postal receipt, Ex. PE Report of public Analyst, Ex. PF Complaint, Ex. PG Copy of letter, Ex. PH Acknowledgement and Ex. PX Postal receipt. 5. The statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) of the accused was recorded in which he denied the allegation levelled against him and alleged false implication and pleaded innocence. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. 6. It is settled principle of law that in its revisional jurisdiction, this court is not to reappre- ciate and reappraise the evidence until and unless, it comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse, illegal and erroneous on account of misreading of evidence. The Courts below while relying upon the cogent and convincing evidence of prosecution witnesses, were right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. 7. Hence, it has been very fairly conceded by learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, at the time of arguments that in view of findings of fact rendered by the Courts below, the petitioner accepts his conviction however, he prays for reduction in the sentence of the petitioner on the plea that the occurrence had taken place on 23.8.1990. Revision-petitioner has been facing proceedings for the last about 20 years and hence he has suffered much agony, He has further argued that petitioner was just 30 years old at the time of occurrence and that he is not previous convict and that he has not committed any offence during this period of 20 years. It is further argued that revision- petitioner was having old parents and young children to support at the time of the occurrence and that his liabilities of the families has also been increased during this period of 20 years, He further argued that appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on 22.1.2002 and that he was taken into custody on the same day. It is further argued that his sentence was suspended by this Court on 28.1.2002 and that he was released within 2 to 3 days later from the jail, hence he has already undergone about 10 days of the actual sentence. It is further argued that his sentence was suspended by this Court on 28.1.2002 and that he was released within 2 to 3 days later from the jail, hence he has already undergone about 10 days of the actual sentence. Hence, it is argued that the revision-petitioner has suffered a protracted trial and he has undergone about 10 days actual sentence and the sentence may be reduced to already undergone. He has placed reliance upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2008(3) RCR(Criminal) 338, wherein reliance was placed upon various judgments rendered by this Court, various other High Courts and Honble Apex Court and it was held as under: "11. Since in the present case, petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of 20 years and has undergone about 15 days, I find that petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of the consistent view taken by this Court. Therefore, sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. The same shall be deposited within a period of three months from today. Non deposit of fine by the petitioner shall render the present revision petition as dismissed. With these modifications, the instant petition is disposed off." 8. The facts of the present case are quite similar to the facts in Krishan Kumar s case (supra). In this case as well the petitioner has suffered protracted trial of about 20 years and he 0has already underone about 10 days of imprisonment. Hence, there is nothing as to why this Court should take a different view to the one taken in Krishan Kumars case (supra). 9. Reliance is also placed upon Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988 (4) SCC 130, in which Honble apex Court while dealing with a case under Prevention of food Adulteration Act, observed as under: "5. Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant had been acquitted by the trial Court and the High Court while reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the appellate Judge has not made clear reference to clause (f). The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing the remaining period of the sentence, though ordinarily in an anti-social offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Court should take strict view of such matter. however, limit the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and sustain the fine along with the default sentence." 10. As already discussed above, the revision- petitioner in this case is facing trial for the last about 20 years. Me was a young person of 30 year of age at the time of this occurrence, as is clear from the opening line of the judgment passed by learned appellate Court. In his statement before learned trial Court he stated that he was having old parents an young children to look after. Hence, there is force in the argument of learned counsel for the revision- petitioner that his family responsibilities must have increased. He is not a previous convict. He has not committed any offence during this period of 20 years of protracted trial. Only marginal deficiency in the milk fat and milk solids fat has been found. He has already undergone about 10 days of imprisonment. 11. Hence, taking into consideration all these facts, the sentence of the revision-petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone, however, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. The same shall be deposited within a period of one month from today and non- deposit of the fine by the revision- petitioner shall render the present petition as dismissed. 12. Hence, present revision petition is dismissed except with the modification in the quantum of sentence, as aforementioned.