Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) ON 29.5.1991 at about 1.30 P.M., Food Inspector seized a sample of Besan from the shop of petitioner. The sample was found not in conformity with the prescribed limits. The petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, and was awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ -, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
(2.) IN the order of sentence, trial Court had noticed the age of petitioner to be 55 years. In the head note of the judgment also, age of the petitioner is recorded as 55 years. A period of about 17 years has lapsed. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner states that petitioner is now aged about 72 years and is critically ill. Mr. Talwar has very fairly stated that he will not be in a position to contest the case on merits as he is conscious of the fact that the scope of revisional Court is limited. In alternate, he has prayed that the petitioner be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") or his sentenced be reduced to already undergone. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent -U.T., and perused the record.
(3.) PROTRACTED trial of 17 years may not be a special reason to reduce the sentence. But very fact of old age, the petitioner being 72 years old is a special reason for not sending him behind the bars. The petitioner has already undergone about 22 days of his sentence of six months.;