J.C.MISRA, J. - (1.) THIS is directed against the order dated 26 -4 - 83 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh dis ­missing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 20 -3 -80 passed by the Magistrate convicting him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) DESPITE the list being revised none appeared for the revisionist. After hearing the learned Counsel for the State the judg ­ment was reserved. Considering the memo of appeal and other available record, I do not find any merit in this revision warrant ­ing interference with the conviction. The fact remains that the said sample was taken on 13 -12 -75. About 25 years have elapsed. The revision is pending since 1983. Look ­ing to the circumstances of the case I find that the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is al ­tered to sentence of fine. In view of the Supreme Court decision in Badri Prasadv. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1996 SCC (Criminal) 79, followed by this Bench Criminal Revision No. 2100 of 1984, Sohan Singh alias Swam Singh v. State of U.P. I modify the sentence awarded as under:
(3.) CONSIDERING the nature of the ac ­cusation and also the fact that the offence had taken long before I find it a fit case to award simple imprisonment and, there ­fore, the rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Magistrate and confirmed by the appellate Court is altered to minimum period but of simple imprisonment.;