ORDER : T.S. Thakur and Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ. - Leave granted. 2. The appellant is a registered medical practitioner in Aurvedic & Unani Systems of Medicine. He was convicted by the trial court for offences punishable under Sections 27(b) (ii), 28 and 28-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1945 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year besides a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 3. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. In appeal the Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant. 4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the appellant approached the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 731 of 2004, which was disposed of by the High Court by its order dated 2.2.2011, impugned in the present appeal. The High Court partly allowed the said Revision Petition and while upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 27(b) (ii), 28 and 28-A of the Act, reduced the sentence awarded to him from one year rigorous imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months only. As regards payment of fine of Rs. 5000/- awarded to the appellant and sentence in default of payment of fine, the orders of the courts below were affirmed. The present appeal assails the correctness of the said judgments and orders. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the orders under challenge. Learned counsel for the appellant made a short submission in support of the appeal. He urged that the appellant is a licensed medical practitioner in Aurvedic & Unani Systems of Medicine and has been practicing in these systems for the past few decades. He has further argued that the incident in question relates to the year 1997, ever since when the appellant has been facing a prolonged trial and hardships related thereto. Above all, the appellant has undergone two months imprisonment out of the period of six months awarded to him in terms of the orders passed by the High Court. He contended that while Section 27 of the Act prescribes a minimum imprisonment of one year, proviso, thereto empowers the court to award a lesser sentence for special reasons to be recorded in the judgment. He contended that while Section 27 of the Act prescribes a minimum imprisonment of one year, proviso, thereto empowers the court to award a lesser sentence for special reasons to be recorded in the judgment. The High Court has in exercise of that power and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and especially the fact that the appellant is a licensed medical practitioner and he has undergone prolonged trial reduced the sentence to six months. It was contended that the said period could have been reduced further but the failure of the courts below to do so does not prevent this Court to do so while disposing of this appeal. Reliance in support was placed upon the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Janmejoy Dinda, 1998 (1) RCR (Criminal) page 864. 6. We find merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant has been practicing as a licensed practitioner in alternative Systems of Medicine for a long period. It is also evident that the prosecution has been rather prolonged which carries with it incidental hardships to the accused a factor that can be taken into consideration while determining the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the person found guilty. In the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the mitigating circumstances pointed out at the Bar, we are of the view that the sentence already undergone by the appellant should suffice. 7. We, accordingly, allow this appeal but only in part and while upholding the conviction of the appellant under Sections 27(b) (ii), 28 and 28-A of the Act, reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone by him. We make it clear that payment of fine and imprisonment awarded in default of payment of fine shall remain unaltered. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal partly allowed.