JUDGMENT 1. -Accused-petitioner seeks to quash the judgments dated 8:1-2.1996 & 22.7.1999 respectively passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur and the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2. Jaipur District, whereby the accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-: in default to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The only contention raised before me in the instant revision by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been facing trial in the criminal case in 1987 and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, his sentence should he reduced to have already undergone and the fine may be increased. 3. Reliance was placed on Rameshwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 WLC (Raj.) UC 418 & N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, (1997) 9 SCC 101 . 4. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 5. A look at Section 16 of the Act; three months minimum sentence is prescribed. In my considered opinion this minimum sentence cannot be reduced further. In Rameshwar Lal's case (supra) this Court while maintaining the conviction of the accused under section 7/16 of the Act reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and maintained the sentence of fine. It was not brought to the notice of the Court that under section 16 of the Act 3 months minimum sentence is prescribed. 6. At this juncture consideration of Section 433 of the Cr.P.C. appears necessary, which provides thus : "433. Power to commute sentence.-The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person sentenced, commute- (a) a sentence of death, for any other punishment provided by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860); (b) a sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for fine; (c) a sentence of rigorous imprisonment, for simple imprisonment for any term to which that person might have been sentenced or for fine; (d) a sentence of simple imprisonment, for fine." 7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had occasion to interpret Section 433 Cr.P.C. in N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector (supra). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had occasion to interpret Section 433 Cr.P.C. in N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector (supra). In that case the sample of ice cream was purchased by the Food Inspector and it was found adulterated. The trial Court convicted the accused on the ground that R. 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was not complied with. The High Court reversed the decision of the trial Court taking the view that when the report of the Public Analyst specified that the seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector, making the sample in a condition fit for analysis, that was the end of the matter and that the statement of the Food Inspector was not deficient when the postal receipt was not adduced in evidence. The acquittal was therefore upset and the appellant was convicted for the offence charged and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The matter was taken to the Apex Court. Their Lordships of the Apex Court, in view of fact that the offence had taken place in the year 1984, were pleased to attract the provisions contained in Section 433 Cr.P.C. and a direction came to he issued for commutation of sentence. Accused was also directed to deposit in the trial Court a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as fine in commutation of sentence of six months' within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of the judgment. It was also directed to intimate the Government that such fine has been deposited. The State Government was also directed to formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders u/CI. (d) of Section 433 Cr.P.C. 8. In the instant case, as already stated, the offence was committed in the year 1987 and the petitioner has been facing trial and was convicted under section 7/16 of the Act, in the manner detailed here in above. 9. The petitioner has already served one month and 17 days imprisonment. In my considered opinion, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioner may be reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment. 9. The petitioner has already served one month and 17 days imprisonment. In my considered opinion, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioner may be reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment. As indicated here in above, this is also a fit case for commutation of sentence under section 43 Cr.P.C. I, therefore. direct under sub-sec. (d) of Section 433 Cr.P.C. to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. The accused-petitioner is, therefore, directed to deposit in the trial Court a sum of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) as fine in commutation of the aforesaid sentence within a period of six weeks from today and intimate the State of Rajasthan that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate order under sub-sec. (d) of Section 433 Cr.P.C. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.Revision partly allowed. *******