JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: (Oral) - This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner – Madan Mohan against judgment dated 25.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 08.04.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak vide which the petitioner has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for eight months and a fine of Rs.1500, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. I need not dilate upon the facts of this case in detail as the same have already been recapitulated in the judgments of the learned Courts below and in view of the ultimate prayer of the petitioner seeking reduction in sentence. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing this revision on merit and is not challenging the conviction on merit. He is only aggrieved against the sentence part. However, he prays that the sentence of the petitioner be suitably reduced as this criminal trial is hanging on his head like Damocles’ sword for the last more than seventeen years and it should be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to treat him leniently. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the occurrence pertains to the year 1995 and since then a period of more than seventeen years has elapsed. The petitioner has suffered the ordeal for long period. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that petitioner has already undergone a period of 01 month 10 days out of eight months’ sentence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Munilal Mochi vs. State of Bihar and another, [2011(6) Law Herald (SC) 4205] : 2011(3) RCR (Criminal) 702 and Ramanlal Baldevdas Shah vs. State of Gujarat, 1992(2) RCR (Criminal 470, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court taking cognizance of the fact that the appellant therein had faced the protracted trial for two decades, had reduced the sentence to already undergone. 6. 6. In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, which have been noted above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars at this point of time as the petitioner faced ordeal for 17 years. It is a fit case wherein sentence awarded to the petitioner can be reduced to the period already undergone and the petitioner can be burdened to pay compensation. Therefore, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone in the present case. However, the fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.15000/-. The impugned order of sentence and conviction stands affirmed with aforesaid modification. 7. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------