Crl. Revision No.284 of 1998 -1- ` IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.284 of 1998 Date of Decision: September 25, 2009 Sham Lal .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Raja Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.SS Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. --- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 9.3.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jind. The appeal preferred by petitioner Sham Lal was dismissed and the judgment/order, dated 1/3.10.1994, of the learned trial Court convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for commission of offence under Section 7/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months, was affirmed. Crl. Revision No.284 of 1998 -2- 2. The present revision was admitted on 17.4.1998 and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence and has prayed that sentence already awarded by the trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. In this regard, learned counsel made a prayer that the petitioner has already suffered a protracted trial for about 24 years, therefore, a lenient view be taken. 4. Learned counsel for the State does not raise any objection to the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The petitioner has suffered a protracted trial for about 24 years. As per the record, the petitioner has already undergone more than one month. 7. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, the protracted trial of about 24 years, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and, in addition thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to an amount of Rs.10,000/- . 8. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence under Section 7/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is upheld. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- to be paid within three months from today. Crl. Revision No.284 of 1998 -3- 9. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed and the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 9.3.1998 and that of the trial Court dated 1/3.10.1994 is modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) September 25, 2009 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No