M.L. Shrimal, J.
1. The accused petitioner was tried by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Dausa under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of food Alteration Act for selling adulterated milk to K.C. Verma Food Inspector, Lalsot. The learned Magistrate placing reliance on the memos prepared by the Food. Inspector as well as the statement of the Food Inspector supported years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- The convicted accused went up in appeal to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa, The learned Judge partly accepted the appeal, maintained the conviction of the accused but reduced the sentence from three years' maintained the conviction of the accused but reduced the sentence from three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Hence this revision.
2. Keeping in view the preponderance of evidence on record and the limited scope of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly argued the case on the point of sentence.
3. The occurrence is of the year 1967 and we are in the year 1978 Eleven years have elapsed in between the commission of the offence and hearing of the revision petition. Pendency of criminal proceeding for long a time, apart from the expenses incurred, does cause considerable inconvenience to the accused. No doubt offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are economic offences, but it should not be forgotten that the accused was only a carrier and ultimate profit was to go to his master This fact when considered along with the prolonged protracted trial, in my opinion is sufficient to reduce the sentence and is covered by proviso to Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
4. The conviction of the accused-petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained, but the substantive sentence awarded to him is reduced from six months' rigorous imprisonment to a period of one month and in lieu of reduction of substantive sentence of imprionment the sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1500/-. In default of the payment fine he shall further suffer three months' rigorous Imprisonment. It is however, made clear that the accused-petitioner shall foe entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. and the period of detention undergone by him during investigation, inquiry or trial shall be set off against the term of imprisonment awarded by this Court. Two months' time is allowed to the accused-petitioner to deposit the fine.
5. The accused is not before me. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to take the accused in custody and send him to jail for the remaining term of sentence awarded by this Court, if such a situation arises.