JUDGMENT:- Heard. 2. The present revision petitioner who was convicted by the learned Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhokar for the offences punishable under section 2(ia) (a) and 2(ia) (c) r/w. 7(i) punishable under section 16(1) (a) (ii) of Prevention of Food adulteration Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in appeal, is before this Court. 3. The complaint of the Food Inspector Sharad Kulkarni would show that on 21/7/1992 when he visited the weekly market of Umri, at that time, the present revision petitioner was found selling chilly powder. 600 gm. chilly powder from packet of 1 Kg. was taken as a sample. The sample was divided in three equal parts as per the due procedure. The samples were sealed in presence of panch witness. One of the sample, according to the provision was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample was not confirming to the standards as prescribed i.e. ash of the sample was more than 8.0% and non volatile ether extract less than 12.0%. Therefore, after giving notice to the petitioner regarding the analysis, the complaint came to be filed. 4. Before the learned Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhokar, the Food Inspector as well as the Assistant of the Food Inspector i.e. P.W. 2 Sakharam were examined. The panch was not examined. The learned Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhokar came to the conclusion that the offence against the petitioner came to be proved and, therefore, the conviction as well as the sentence came to be recorded. 5. Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since passage of time, the present petitioner now is foregoing his claim against conviction. He however submits that the prosecution case itself would show that in a weekly market there were many chilly powder vendors. All of them fled away, however, the present petitioner remained at the spot and, therefore, he was apprehended. He is a poor chilly powder vendor in a rural weekly market. He is more than 65 years old. After filing of the present revision petition, the petitioner surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 7/7/2001 and thereafter, vide order dated 9/11/2001 he was directed to be released on bail. He is a poor chilly powder vendor in a rural weekly market. He is more than 65 years old. After filing of the present revision petition, the petitioner surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 7/7/2001 and thereafter, vide order dated 9/11/2001 he was directed to be released on bail. Thus, he was behind the bar for a period of four months. He further submits that the fine amount is already deposited. In the circumstances, taking into consideration all these facts, he submits that the sentence be awarded for the already undergone period. 6. The learned A.P.P. opposed the plea. 7. Considering all the facts on record, as detailed by Mr. Shaikh, in my view, now since the petitioner is 65 years old, and he was caught in a rural weekly market while selling the chilly powder on retail basis, in my view, the period of imprisonment already undergone by him i.e. for more than 4 months would be just and sufficient. 8. In the circumstances, the following order: I) The Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed. II) The conviction of the present petitioner for the offences punishable under section 2(ia) (a) and 2(ia) (c) r/w. 7(i) punishable under section 16(1) (a) (ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and direction to pay fine of Rs.2000/- is hereby maintained. lII) As regards the sentence, the orders of the learned Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhokar dated 10th February, 1995 and of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded dated 21st June, 2001 arc hereby set aside. Instead, it is hereby directed that the petitioner to serve the sentence already undergone by him. IV) Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms. Application partly allowed.