ORDER
K.D. Shahi, J.
1. These revisions have been preferred by revisional Maqbool Ahmad against the judgment and order dated 19-4-1983 passed by Sri G.R. Kishore, the then IV Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 1982 [(Maqbool Ahmad v. State ) in revision No. 1326 of 1983] [and revision No. 1325 of 1983 in Criminal Appeal No. 1325 of 1983 -(Maqbool Ahmad v.State]) upholding the conviction of the appellant awarded by Sri B.N. Shukla, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Moradabad vide his order dated 15-9-1982 sending the appellant to undergo 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months R.I.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on (in revision No. 13 26 of 1983) 17-12-1979 at about 8.15 a.m. and (in revision No. 1325 of 1983) on 24-12-1979 at about 9.30 a.m. the revisionist was found selling and exposing for sale mixed milk of cow and buffalo near the octroi post, Moradabad within the municipal limits of Moradabad. The Food Inspector obtained sanction for prosecution from Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad and complaint was filed against the revisionist, in both the cases.
3. On evidence the revisionist (in both revisions) was convicted by the learned Magistrate on 15-9-1982 and the appeal was dismissed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad on 19-4-1983 hence these revisions.
4. Since both the revisions arise out of conviction and sentence by a common judgment, therefore, both are taken together for disposal.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri V.B.L. Srivastava did not contest the revisions on merits, he only argued on sentence and referred various rulings of this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are as under :
A. Badri Prasad v. State of M.P. reported in 1996 SCC (Cri) 79 (Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1989, decided on 24-1-1995.) In this case the appellant was convicted under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for a period of six months R.I. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was some scope towards the sentence because Supreme Court granted leave in 1989 and the appellant was on bail. The sentence of six months R.I. was reduced to three months’ simple imprisonment, while sustaining the fine of Rs. 1,000/- as awarded by the Courts below. This order was passed to enable the appellant to approach the State Government under sub-clause (d) of Section 433 for conversion of simple imprisonment to fine. The Supreme Court recommended the State Government to release the appellant on the charging of Rs. 2,000/- as fine and further directed the appellant to pass an appropriate order by the State Government to that effect within a period of three months’. The Supreme Court also directed the appellant to depo-sit the fine in the trial Court under two heads the fine imposed by the Court i.e. Rs.-1,000/- as also the alterable fine of Rs. 2,000/- within a period of three weeks and to inform the State Government of his having discharged his obligation. Supreme Court ordered that on his doing so the appellant need not be arrested.
B. N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara reported in (1997) 9 SCC 101 : (1995 Cri LJ 3651) (Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 1989, decided on 31-1-1995). In this case the appellant was tried for adulteration in Ice cream. The appellant was acquitted from the Court below. The High Court reversed the decision of the learned trial Court and the acquittal of the appellant was set aside. The appellant was convicted for the offence charged and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months’ and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for two months’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held (Para 3 of Cri LJ) :
The offence took place in the year 1984. The appellant has been awarded six months’ simple imprisonment and has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, “the appropriate government” is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment of 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 imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such five, the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
C. Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal reported in 1998 SCC (Cri) 1340 : (AIR 1999 SC 1482) Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1986 with Crl. Appl. Nos. 62 of 1986; 69 fo 1990; 265 of 1998 in S.l.P. (Crl) No. 2255 of 1988, decided on 3-3-1998). In this ruling several appeals were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 3-3-1998 in Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 1990. In this case the conviction of the appellant for selling adulterated mustard oil was confirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held (para 3 of AIR) :
Although a technical offence had been committed by the appellant for exceeding the saponification value to a marginal extent, the appellant has already suffered imprisonment for some time and on account of his protracted litigation at different stage he has also suffered a lot of financial hardship and mental agony. He was also released on bail by this Court long back. Therefore, the ends of justice will be met if he is not required to suffer further imprisonment to serve out the sentence passed against him and the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the special facts of the case. In support of such contents Mr. Jethmalani has also referred to the decisions of this Court in Bhagwan Das Motu Lal Nvalani v. State of Maharashtra (1987 (2) SCC 645) and Jagdish Prasad v. State of West Bengal AIR 1962 SC 2044). In both the cases, considering the special facts of the case and the hardship of the accused, this Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. Considering the facts of the case it appears to us that the ends of justice will be met if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant and we order accordingly. We, however, enhance the fine from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. The fine should be paid within a period of four weeks from today, in default the appellant will suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Similarly in other two appeals in this case on the ground of protracted litigation and financial hardship and mental agony already suffered by the appellant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reduced the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively.
D. Des Raj v. State of Haryana reported in 1996 Cri LJ 2720 (Punj & Har) Cri. Rev. No. 890 of 1995, decided on 22-12-1995). In this case, revisionist was sentenced to 1 year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The offence was committed in August, 1987. In this case a judgment of apex Court in Braham Dass case (1981) 2 FAC 13 : (AIR 1988 SC 1789) was referred wherein it was held (para 10 Cri LJ) :
Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant had been acquitted by the trial Court and High Court while reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the appellate judge has not made clear reference to Clause (f). The occurrence took place about more than 3 years back, Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of these imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of “time for undergoing the remaining period of the sentence, though ordinarily in an anti-social offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the Court should take strict view of such matter.
The High Court reduced the period of sentence already undergone. Sentence of fine was, however, maintained along with its default clause.
E. A ruling of Allahabad High Court reported in 1996 JIC 676 Bhageloo v. State of U.P. (Cri. Rev. No. 1466 of 1983, decided on 19-3-1996) was referred. In this case the revisionist was convicted under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in 1983 and sentenced to six months’ R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. This Court considering the humanitarian problems and considering that the revisionist has already remained in jail custody for more than two weeks, reduced the period of sentence to already undergone but further sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in place of six months’ R.I.
F. In the ruling reported in (1997) 35 ACC 6 (Hindi) Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P., the revisionist.was convicted six months’ R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The case was of 1991. This Court held that the revisionist has been sentenced enough, his sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
G. A latest ruling of this Court reported in (1999) 1 JIC 853 (All) Chand Ali v. State of U.P. (Cri Revn No. 1426 of 1996, decided on 20-12-1996) was also referred. In this case the adulteration was detected in 1980 and it was held that after 18 years, it would not be proper to send the accused in jail, more so when he had spent few days in jail and the revision filed in 1984 could not be decided till today for no fault of the revisionist. In this case it was held :
The minimum sentence of imprisonment of six months’ and fine of Rs. 1,000/- may be reduced for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in judgment to a sentence of imprisonment which shall not be less than three months and with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 5,000/- if the offence is under sub-clause (1) and (ii) of (a) and is in with respect of primary food in the cases covered by proviso (i) and (ii) as also in cases covered by the second proviso.
In view of Section 16 of the Act, it is open to the Courts either to award R.I. of simple imprisonment but the period of imprisonment cannot be less than six months and if the case is covered by the proviso to sentence of three months.
After this decision, this Court considering the nature of occasion and also the fact that the offence had taken long before this Court altered the sentence of R.I. to simple imprisonment and further directed that :
In view of the facts stated above provisionally instead of sentence of six months simple imprisonment, the revisionist are sentenced to a fine of Rs. 6,000/- including the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court with the direction to the revisionists to deposit the fine imposed in the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the notice from the Court of Magistrate concerned and to apprise the State Government that the amount has been deposited with a copy of receipt and copy of this order. The State Government on receipt of the copy of the order and receipt evidencing deposit of fine may formalise the commutation in terms of the direction given by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above.
In case the acccused fails to deposit the fine imposed within 2 months as ordered he shall serve out the sentence of simple imprisonment as ordered.
The Magistrate concerned shall intimate the revisionist the alteration of the sentence on receipt of the copy of this order.
6. I have considered the facts and circumstanes of the present case and also the proposition of law as propounded in the above rulings and I find that offence took place in 1979. The Magistrate passed the sentence order in 1982 and the appeal was dismissed in 1983. The revision was filed in 1983 itself and it has now come up for hearing after more than 16 years. No useful purpose would be served by sending the accused revisionist to jail after such a long gap. In view of the above facts, the sentence of the revisionist (in Criminal Revision Nos. 1325 of 1983 and 1326 of 1983) is reduced to six months’ simple imprisonment in each case but instead of sentence of actual imprisonment, the revisionist is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 4,000/- (four thousand) in each case including the sentence of fine imposed by the learned trial Court with the direction to the revisionist to deposit the above amount in the trial Court within a period of three months and to apply before the State Government that the amount of fine has been deposited. The revisionist will move an application separately in each case along with the copy of the receipt and this order and the State Government on receipt of the application along with this order, shall formalise the matter under the provisions of Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the compliance of the above order and deposit the revisionist need not surrender before the Courts below. It is further directed that in case revisionist fails to deposit the fine within a period of three months’, he shall serve out the simple imprisonment to six months’ as ordered above separately in both the cases.