S. Marimuthu, J. 1. This revision is filed questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Thalassery delivered in Crl. Appeal No. 46 of 1992. That appeal had arisen against the conviction rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery in C. C. No. 71 of 1989.
2. The facts as borne out from the records are briefly as follows : The revision petitioner (first accused) was the salesman of Munderi Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham Ltd., in which accused Nos. 2 to 4 were the Secretary, President and the society itself. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were acquitted by the trial Court itself. On 19-6-1989, PW-1, the Food Inspector, inspected the society and purchased cow milk. On following the formalities as laid down in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, one of the parts of the sample was sent to the Chemical Analyst for examination and report. On receipt of the report, marked as Ext. P-l1, it was found by PW-1 that the milk fat contained was at 5% and milk solids not fat was at 7.8%. But the standard as prescribed in the Act is 3.5%. However, challenging Ext. P-11, yet another part of the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for examination and report. That report, Ext. P-33, would indicate that the milk solids not fat contained 7.8% for which the complaint was filed. The Magistrate on assessing the evidence found the revision petitioner (first accused) guilty under Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 2(ia)(m), read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months and also to .pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default in the payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. That conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Judge. However, he reduced the sentence of imprisonment to three months.
3. Learned counsel Mr. Ravi Shankar, appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction and however, the sentence of imprisonment of three months imposed by the Sessions Court can be set aside on the basis of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions taking into account the long pendency of the criminal prosecution from the year 1989. No doubt, Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that for similar offence, the minimum sentence shall not be less than six months and the fine, not less than Rs. 1,000/-. But, however, on account of adequate and special reasons, the minimum sentence cannot be less than three months and the fine shall not be less than Rs. 500/-. According to Mr. Ravishankar, even the minimum sentence of three months can be set aside as per the principle laid down by the Supreme Court as pointed out above.
4. Therefore, now I will look into the decisions referred to by him in this regard. In an earliest decision delivered by the Supreme Court in Lingappa Shetty v. Hubli Dharvar Municipal Corporation 1979 (1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 193 : 1979 Cri LJ 1382, it is held that -
...In view of the nature and circumstances of the case, we feel that it is not necessary for the appellant to be sent back to jail. In this view of the matter, we do not want to enter into the merits of the appeal which has also not been pressed seriously. We, therefore, while upholding the conviction of the appellant reduce the sentence to the period already served (two weeks) maintaining the fine. With this modification, this appeal is dismissed.
5. In Bhagwan Das Motu Lal Navalani v. State of Maharashtra 1988 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 2, the Supreme Court has held that having considered the age of the prosecution for about 15 years and also the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant, the appeal can be disposed of partly by sentencing the appellant to imprisonment to the period (some lime) already undergone and also maintaining the fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In yet another case reported in Braham Das v. The State of Himachal Pradesh 1988 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 13 : 1988 Cri LJ 1816, the Supreme Court has laid down the same principle that the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant/accused is sufficient to meet the ends of justice having regard to the age of the litigation for more than 8 years and accordingly, the sentence ordered by the Supreme Court was the period already undergone by the appellant.
6. In a latest case reported at page 3229, 1995 AIR SCW : 1995 Cri LJ 3651 (N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara), the following principle is laid down by the Supreme Court at page 3652, of Cri LJ :
3. 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. 1000/-. Under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 'the appropriate government' is empowered 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/- (sic) 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 fine, the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." The present case on hand has been pending from the year 1989, for about 9 years. Having regard to the age of this prosecution, as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court extracted above in Sukumaran Nair's case, I feel that the sentence of fine in commutation will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment of three months imposed by the Sessions Judge can be commutted by the appropriate government as provided in Section 433 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, in addition to the fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed by the Court below, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit in the trial Court a sum of Rs. 3,000/- in commutation off the sentence of three months of simple imprisonment within a period of one month from today and intimate the State Government that such fine has been deposited.
7. On deposit of the fine (Rs. 3,000/-), the State Government shall formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this respect, the trial magistrate is directed to intimate the above fact to the State Government for the purpose of passing appropriate order, The revision petitioner is further directed to deposit the fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- in the trial Court within the same period of one month from today. The Crl. R. P. is, accordingly, disposed of.