J. C. MISHRA, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 18-6-85 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 17-10- 84 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act) and sentenc ing him to rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to fine of Rs. 1,500. 2. The prosecution case is that on 5-8-81 the Food Inspector Shailendra Kumar Singh went at the shop of the revisionist and purchased 500 gm. Ghana dal, divided it in three parts, kept in three clean and dry phials and sent one of them to the Public Analyst. The sample was found containing 10% khesaridal, which is injurious to health. After obtaining the sanction a complaint was lodged. To prove its case the prosecution examined Hazari Singh who proved reports and sanction for prosecution and senatory supervisor Ram Bali (PW-2 ). The prosecution also ex amined Wazir Ashraf (PW-3) who proved various documents as also Shailendra Kumar Singh (PW-4) who had taken the sample from the shop of the accused. The learned Magistrate believed the evidence in support of the complaint and convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. The appeal preferred by the accused was dismissed and consequently this revision was filed. 3. I have heard Sri R. C. Shukla, the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA. 4. The learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the conviction is bad on account of non- compliance of Section 10 (7) of the Act. It is true that no public witness was present at the time the sample was taken but the Food Inspector has given proper explanation that inde pendent witnesses were not prepared to give evidence and, therefore, the presence of any public witness could not be procured. The explanation in this regard was believed by both the Courts below and there is no reason to take contrary view. Mere non-mentioning of this explanation in the memo by itself cannot be sufficient to discard the evidence of the Food Inspec tor, which is believed on proper apprecia tion by the Courts below. In the cir cumstances of the present case the non examination of an independent witness is hardly relevant more so when nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of the Food In spector. In the cir cumstances of the present case the non examination of an independent witness is hardly relevant more so when nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of the Food In spector. Moreover, according to the Food Inspector 2 or 3 persons were present when the sample was taken. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge ap pears to be correct. 5. It has been contended that notice in Form VI was not given to the revisionist. Thus, there was breach of Section 11-A of the Act. This plea was also considered by the appellate Court and by a reasoned order the plea that the notice did not bear the signature of the revisionist was repelled. 6. Lastly the learned Counsel con tended that the alleged sample was taken in the year 1984 and after the lapse of 15 years it would not be proper to sent the accused to jail; more so when he has served out at least few days of the sentence awarded. I find merit in this contention. 7. In view of the facts and circumstan ces of the case that the alleged adulteration was made in the year 1981 ii would not Iv proper to send the accused to jail after such a long time; more so when he had served at least few days sentence after his convic tion. The Supreme Court in Stoic of Orissa v. K. Rajeshwar Rao, (1992) I SCC 365; 1992jic 108 (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 lime the ends of justice may not he served by sending the respondent to imprison ment. It is suffice that he has undergone all these years the agony of the prosecution. 8. 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 decisions, therefore, not applicable to the offences which occurred after the Amending Act came into force. 8. 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 decisions, therefore, not applicable to the offences 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 more upto maximum limit prescribed. In my opinion, if the legis lation requires that on an offence being proved minimum sentence of imprison ment has to be awarded the Courts cannot overlook the legislative mandate and award sentence of fine only though on enquity it may feel justify to take lenient view. However, Courts can covert sen tence of rigorous imprisonment into sen tence of simple imprisonment. 9. 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. 10. It is open to State Government to take lenient view considering the nature of the offence and circumstances, specially the sentence awarded long before, could not be implemented on account of delayed disposal of revision or appeal may com mute the sentence. In view of this legal position the Supreme Court in A. Sitkumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, (1997) 9scc101, considering the delayed disposal found the case ap propriate for commutation of sentence and directed 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 and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the Supreme Court observed that the State Government may form alise the mat ter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. On deposit of such fine, the Supreme Court observed that the State Government may form alise the mat ter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. On similar consideration the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 996 SCC (Criminal) 79, passed the following order:- "there is some scope, however, towards the sentence because this Court granted in 1989 leave and the appellant is on ba. We would rather now scale down the sentence of six months RI to three months simple imprisonment, while sus taining the fine of Rs. 1,000 as awarded by the Courts below. Subject to this modifica tion in the sentence, the appeal otherwise fails. This has been made to enable the appellant to approach the State Govern ment under sub-clause (d) of Section 433 for conversion of simple imprisonment to fine. Since the adulteration was only by adding a coloring contents in the chilies powder and that was possibly done to please the customers eye, we recommend that the State Government, release the appellant on the charging of Rs. 2,000 as fine and that an appropriate order be passed by the State Government to that effect within a period of three months. The appellant shall deposit 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 form today and apprise the State Government of his having discharged his obligation. On his doing so, the appellant need not be arrested. " 12. In my view it is not legally permis sible to alter the minimum sentence of imprisonment in fine only but sentence of rigorous imprisonment can be altered into simple imprisonment and the Slate Government may be desired to formalize the imposition of sentence of line by virtue of its powers under Section 433 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. 13. Section 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act requires that an accused, if he manufactures for sale or stores, sales or distributes any article of food enumerated in clauses (a) to (g), he shall in addition to the penally to which he may be liable under the provisions of Sec tion 6 bepunishablewilh an imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months which may exteni to three years and with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1,000. 14. The minimum sentence of im prisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000 may be reduced for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in judg ment to a sentence of imprisonment which shall not be less than three months and with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 500 if the offence is under sub-clauses (i) 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. 15. In view of Section 16 of the Aci il is open to the Courts either to award RI or simple imprisonment but the period of imprisonment cannot be less Ihan six months and if the case is covered by the proviso to scnicnccof three mom hs. Considering the natureol the accusa tion and also the fact that the offence had taken long before I find it a fit case to award simple imprisonment and, therefore, the rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Magistrate and confirmed by the appellate Court is altered to minimum period but of simple imprisonment. 16. In view of the facts slated above provisionally instead of sentence of six months simple imprisonment, the revisionists are sentenced to a fine of Rs. 6,000 including the sentence of fine im posed by the-tnal Court with the direction to the revisionists to deposit the line im posed in the trial Court within a period of two months from the dale of receipt of the notice from the Court of Magistrate con cerned and to apprise the Slate Govern ment that the amount has been deposited with a copy of receipt and copy of this order. The Slate Government on receipt of the copy of the order and receipt evidenc ing deposit of fine may formalise the com mutation in terms of the direction given by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above. 17. In case the accused fails to deposit the fine imposed within 2 months as or dered he shall serve out the sentence of simple imprisonment as ordered. 18. The Magistrate concerned shall intimate the revisionist the alteration of the sentence on receipt of the copy of this order. 19. The revision is disposed of with modification of sentence as aforesaid while maintaining the conviction. Sentence modified. .