JUDGMENT 1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. The revision petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:- 'It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to send for the record of the courts below, peruse the same and after perusal set aside the convictions/sentences passed against the accused, acquit him or pass any other orders that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. 3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1983 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the year 2000. 4. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.05.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar in regular Criminal Appeal No.34/97(10/93) whereby the judgment dated 19.01.1993 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur in Criminal Case No.572/92 convicting the revisionist-petitioners was upheld. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to undergo six months S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further one month's S.I. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 12.06.2000 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application No.72/2000. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same. 8. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) 'There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) 'There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.' In Haripada Das (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering reduction of sentence to the period already undergone by the convicted therein under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, observed as under: '...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone...' 9. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly. 10. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned below be sent back forthwith.