B. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision against the judgment and order dated 4-7-1984 passed by Sri Daya Ram, the then II Addl. Sessions Judge, Deoria in Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 1983 whereby he dismissed the appeal of accused-revisionist Jai Narain against his conviction by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Deoria in case No. 2272 of 1982, State v. Jai Ram, under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, P. S. Khampar, district Deoria, but reduced his sentence from one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 as awarded by the Magistrate to R. I. for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 and in default of payment of time to suffer R. I. for a further period of three months. ( 2 ) IN this case, the accused-revisionist was found selling Dhaniya and the sample taken from him by the Food Inspector was found by the Public Analyst to be adulterated. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the accused-revisionist has not challenged his conviction for the offence. He has confined himself to the question of sentence. He has pointed out that the matter related to the year 1980 and the accused-revisionist was coming down on bail from this Court since the year 1984. He has also pointed out that the accused-revisionist has already been in custody from 4-7-1984 (when his appeal was dismissed) till 20-7-1984 (when he was released on bail on acceptance of his bail bond furnished before the learned Magistrate in pursuance of the bail order of this Court dated 18-7-1994 and has prayed that his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him as a convict. ( 4 ) THE learned A. G. A. had strongly opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the accused-revisionist on the ground that in this case, Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides a minimum sentence of imprisonment for this offence for a term which shall not be less then six months and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. In this case, the learned lower appellate Court had already reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year R. I. to six months R. I. and the fine from Rs. 2000. 00 to Rs. 1000. In this case, the learned lower appellate Court had already reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year R. I. to six months R. I. and the fine from Rs. 2000. 00 to Rs. 1000. 00 which is the minimum provided under the statute namely six months R. I. and fine of Rs. 1000. 00 and that where the statutes provides minimum sentence, this Court cannot reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum. There are a number of authorities of the Apex Court which clearly show that this minimum cannot be transgressed. In the case of State of U. P. v. Hanif, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1121 : (1992) Cri LJ 1429), the Courts below imposed R. I. of six months and fine of Rs. 1000. 00 for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and as in the present case, a plea was raised before the Apex Court that a lenient view be taken in view of long lapse of time. The Apex Court held that the sentence being minimum, no interference, called for. Then there was another authority State of Haryana v. Pawan Kumar, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 521 . In that case, the High Court while upholding the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which was less than a month. The Apex Court held that the High Court erred in reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone (which was less then a month) as the minimum substantive sentence to be imposed under the Act for the above offence is six months and consequently the Apex Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court only so far as it reduced the substantive sentence of the respondent to the period already undergone and direct that he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. There is yet another authority of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. State of U. P. reported in (1998) 6 SCC 238 : (1998 AIR SCW 4010 ). There is yet another authority of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. State of U. P. reported in (1998) 6 SCC 238 : (1998 AIR SCW 4010 ). In that case, a prayer was made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that some leniency should be shown to him as the offence had taken place in 1979 and that the appellants father, who was the owner of the shop, had now died. The submission was rejected by the Apex Court by holding that once the offence is held proved, the minimum sentence has to be imposed. ( 5 ) IN view of the above legal position, it is not possible to give any relief to the accused-revisionist on the point of sentence. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the revision fails and is dismissed. The order dated 4-7-1984 passed by the lower appellate Court (Sri Daya Ram, the then II Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria) whereby it maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the minimum provided under the Act, namely six months R. I. and Rs. 1000. 00 as fine is upheld. The stay order dated 18-7-1984 passed by this Court is vacated. ( 7 ) THE accused-revisionist is on bail from this Court. His bail bonds are cancelled. Let the C. J. M. concerned get him arrested and consigned to the District Jail concerned to serve out the sentence according to law. ( 8 ) LET the complete record of the Courts below be sent back by the office, of the High Court within a week from today by the special messenger/courier to the Sessions Judge concerned along with a copy of this judgment for compliance. The compliance report shall be submitted by the learned Magistrate to this Court within twenty days from today. ( 9 ) LIST this revision again before this Court on 19-5-1999 for orders along with the compliance report of the C. J. M. concerned. Petition dismissed.