- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. Applicant Wali Mohd. on 3-6-85 was exposing milk for sale. A sample of milk was taken from him according to rules by the Food Inspector and the sample was found adulterated and found deficient in 22% of non-fatty solids and 22% milk fat. The applicant was prosecuted according to law which resulted in his conviction under Section 7/16 PFA Act and sentence of six months RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000, which was awarded by the ACJM, Khurja by an order dated 29-11-94. Against that order the ap plicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1996 which was dismissed on 2-8-2000 and the applicant could not get any relief in the appeal. Aggrieved by that order the present revision has been preferred.
(2.) 1 have heard Sri S. P. Singh Raghav, learned Counsel for the applicant and the AGA. The learned Counsel for the ap plicant has not challenged the conviction on merits. I have considered the judgments and is of the view that the applicant was rightly convicted. The revision has been argued only on the question of sentence. It is con tended that the sentence may be permitted to be commuted under clause (c) of Sec tion 433 Crpc as the sample in the present case was taken in the year 1985. The learned Counsel has referred to the fol lowing observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the case of N. Sukumoran Nair v. Food Inspector, (1997) 9 SCC page 101: "the offence took place in the year 1984. The appellant has been awarded six months', simple imprison ment and has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1. 000 under clause (c) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "the appropriate Government" is em powered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. We think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost a decade has gone by. We, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial Court a sum of Rs. 6,000 as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months', simple im prisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the ap propriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (c) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. "
(3.) IN view of the above observations, there is no reason as to why the sentence of the revisionist be not commuted. I accord ingly direct that the applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 6,000 as fine in commutation of his sentence of six months' RI (in addi tion of the fine of Rs. 1,000 imposed on him ). On deposit of fine, the applicant shall be released from jail and shall not be re- arrested. The revisionist shall send an application to the State Government for commutation of his sentence of six months', RI alongwith the copy of this judgment and receipt of Rs. 6,000 deposited by him. On that application of the revisionist, the State Government may formalise the matter by passing ap propriate order under Section 433 (c) Crpc. However, in case the revisionist fails to deposit the amount of fine, as directed above, he shall serve out the sentence im posed upon him by the Magistrate. The revision is disposed of with the modification of the sentence as aforesaid while maintaining the conviction. Revision disposed of. .;