JUDGMENT 1. - Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the factum of conviction. The trial Court convicted the accused-petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo 3 months' further simple imprisonment. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of awarding substantive sentence, the sentence of fine may be enhanced. 2. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, while maintaining the conviction, the offer of the accused person that he should be made to pay a higher amount of fine is accepted. Therefore, it is ordered that instead of fine of Rs. 2,000/-he should pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- as fine. One month's time is granted to the petitioner to deposit the amount with the trial Court. In case the amount is not deposited, the accused- petitioner shall undergo the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. If the amount is paid then the sentence of imprisonment shall stand converted into one of fine. 3. In the result, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, the revision petition is partly allowed as indicated above.Revision partly allowed. *******