- (1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 24-5-1983 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 30-8-1982 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of Special Court, Shahjahanpur convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 100.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional. Government Advocate. I find no merit in the revision as regards the conviction is concerned. How ever, this revision is pending since 1983 and the adulteration was made on 11-1 -1979. In view of the facts and circumstan ces of the case that the alleged adulteration was made in the year 1979 it would not be proper to send the accused to jail after such a long time ; more so when he had served out at least few days sentence after his conviction. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. K. Rajeshwar Rao, 1992 (29) ACC 70 (SC), altered the sentence of imprisonment to sentence of fine on the ground that 15 years had passed by from the date of offence and at this distance of time the ends of justice may not be served by sending the respondent to imprison ment ; more so when he has undergone all these years the agony of the prosecution.
(3.) THE offence in the case before the Supreme Court had occurred on March 13, 1976 before the Amending Act came into force. THE Supreme Court observed that under the un-amended Act it was not man datory to impose the minimum sentence. This decision therefore, not applicable to the offence which occurred after the Amending Act came into force. Since the legislation has done away with the discre tion of the Courts to award either sentence of imprisonment or fine and minimum sentence has been prescribed, the Courts have been left with no discretion but to award minimum or any sentence up to maximum limit prescribed. In my opinion, if the legislation requires that on an of fence being proved at least minimum sen tence of imprisonment has to be awarded and the Courts cannot overlook the legislative mandate and award sentence of fine only though on enquiry it may feel justified to take lenient view. However, Quirts can convert sentence of rigorous imprisonment into sentence of simple imprisonment. Though the Courts have got no power to refuse to award minimum sen tence of imprisonment yet under clause (d) of Section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure "the appropriate Government" is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment and to impose fine.;