J. C. MISHRA, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 6-4-84 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh dismissing the appeal preferred against the order dated 20-12-83 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Sri Samit Jain, the learned counsel for the revisionist contended that thesanc-tion for prosecution was accorded without application of mind; there was non-compliance of Sections 10 (7) and 13 (2) of the Act; the provisions of Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules were not complied with despite the alleged adulteration the coriander was not unfit for human consumption; the revisionist was entitled to be released on probation. 3. All these arguments advanced were considered at length by the Courts below and were rightly rejected. There is no merit in the revision so far as the convic tion is concerned. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the alleged adulteration was detected in the year 1980 and after more than 18 years, it would not be proper to send the accused to jail, more so when he had spent few days in the jail and the revision which was filed in the year 1984 could not be decided till today for no fault of the revisionist. 5. In view of the facts and circumstan ces of the case that the alleged adulteration was made in the year 1980 it would not be proper to send the accused to jailafter such a long time; more so when he had served at least few days sentence after his convic tion. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa v, K. Rajeshwar Rao, (1992) 1 SCC 365 , aftered the sentence of imprisonment to sentence of fine on the ground that 15 years had passed by from the date of of fence and at this distance of time the ends of justice may not be served by sending the respondent to imprisonment. It is suffice that he has undergone all these years the agony of the prosecution. 6. The offence in the case before the Supreme Court had occurred on March 13, 1976 before the Amending Act came into fore. It is suffice that he has undergone all these years the agony of the prosecution. 6. The offence in the case before the Supreme Court had occurred on March 13, 1976 before the Amending Act came into fore. 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 discretion 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 up to 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 equity it may feel justify to take lenient view. However, Courts can convert sen tence of rigorous imprisonment into sen tence of simple imprisonment. 7. 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. 8. It is open to State Government to lake 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 N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, (1997) 9 SCC 101 , consider ing the delayed disposal found the case appropriate for commutation of sentence and directed the appellant to deposit in the trial Court a sum of Rs. 6000/- 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 formalise the mat ter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. On deposit of such fine, the Supreme Court observed that the State Government may formalise the mat ter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. On similar consideration the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1996 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 bail. We would rather now scale down the sentence of six months R. I. to three months simple imprison ment, while sustaining the fine of Rs. 1000/- as awarded by the Courts below. Subject to this modification in the sentence, the appeal other wise fails. This has been made to enable the appellant to approach the State Government under sub-clause (d) of Section 433 for conver sion of simple imprisonment to fine. Since the adulteration was only by adding a colouring con tents in the chillies powder and that was possibly done to please the customers eye, we recom mend that the State Government, release the appellant on the charging of Rs. 2000/- 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 im posed by the Court i. e. Rs. 1000/- as also the afterable fine of Rs. 2000/- within a period of three weeks from today and apprise the State Government of his having discharged his obliga tion. On his doing so, the appellant need not be arrested. " 10. In my view it is not legally permis sible to after the minimum sentence of imprisonment in fine only but sentence of rigorous imprisonment can be aftered into simple imprisonment and the State Government may be desired to formalise the imposition of sentence of fine by virtue of its powers under Section 433 (d) of the Codeof Criminal Procedure. 11. In my view it is not legally permis sible to after the minimum sentence of imprisonment in fine only but sentence of rigorous imprisonment can be aftered into simple imprisonment and the State Government may be desired to formalise the imposition of sentence of fine by virtue of its powers under Section 433 (d) of the Codeof Criminal Procedure. 11. Section 16 (1) of the Preventionof 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 penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of Sec tion 6 be punishable with an imprison ment for a term which shall not be less than six months which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1000. 12. The minimum sentence of im prisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- 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. 500/- if the offence is under sub-clauses (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. 13. In view of Section 16 of the Act it is open to the Courts either to award R. I. or 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. 14. Considering the nature of 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 aftered to minimum period but of simple imprisonment. 15. In view of the facts stated above provisionally instead of sentence of six months simple imprisonment, the revisionists are sentenced to a fine of Rs. 15. In view of the facts stated above provisionally instead of sentence of six months simple imprisonment, the revisionists are sentenced to a fine of Rs. 6000/- including the sentence of fine im posed by the trial Court with the direction to the revisionists to deposit the fine im posed in the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the notice from the Court of Magistrate con cerned and to apprise the State Govern ment 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. 16. In case the accused fails to deposit the fine imposed within 2 months as ordered he shall serve out the sentence of simple imprisonment as ordered. 17. The Magistrate concerned shall intimate the revisionist the afteration of the sentence on receipt of the copy of this order. 18. The revision is disposed of with modification of sentence as aforesaid while maintaining the conviction. Revision disposed of. .