I.A. ANSARI, J.- This Criminal Revision arises out of the judgment and order, dated 20.6.96, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lahimpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 29(3)/1989, dismissing the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner challenging the judgment and order, dated 17.6.89, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, in C.R. Case No. 936/87, convicting the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'PFA Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,0007- and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. 2. The case against the accused-appellant, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows: On 27.3.87, Shri A.C. Sarma, Food Inspector of Lakhimpur, accompanied by his office peon, namely, Harendra Nath Dutta, went to the grocery shop of the accused, at Dholpur, which was being run under the name and style of Vikash Trading Company, and upon making enquiry, when the Food Inspector came to know that the accused was the owner of the said grocery shop, he (Food Inspector) disclosed his identity and, after serving the accused with a notice in Form VI, took, in the presence of his said peon as a witness, sample of Ajowan weighting 450 grams by paying requisite price thereof. After observing an formalities relating to taking of the sample and its packing, the Food Inspector sent one of the samples to Public Analyst, who, in turn, vide Ext. 10, opined that the sample was an adulterated one. Thereafter, the Food Inspector obtained necessary sanction from the competent authority and lodged his offence report against the accused. On the request made by the accused, one of the samples was also sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as "the CFL")who too reported that the sample was adulterated. 3. During trial, when a charge framed under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the PFA Act was read over and explained to the accused, 'he pleaded not guilty thereto. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined two witnesses, namely, the Food Inspector and his office peon aforementioned. 3. During trial, when a charge framed under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the PFA Act was read over and explained to the accused, 'he pleaded not guilty thereto. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined two witnesses, namely, the Food Inspector and his office peon aforementioned. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence allegedly to have committed by him, the defence of the accused being, inter-alia, that he was not the owner of the shop, he had not sold Ajowan to the Food Inspector and that the Ajowan sold was not meant for sale. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court, on finding the accused guilty of the charge framed against him, convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as hereinbefore mentioned. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court was turned down and his conviction as well as sentence passed against him were upheld. Hence, the present revision. 6. I have heard Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Miss B. Rajkowa, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who has appeared on behalf of respondents. 7. While coming to the merit of this revision, it is of paramount importance to note that a number of grounds were taken up by the petitioner in his revision petition against the impugned judgments and orders, but at the time of hearing, this revision has not been argued on merit. That apart, on perusal of the materials on record, 1 find that the prosecution had successfully proved that sample of Ajowan, as deposed to by the Food Inspector, was, indeed, taken from the accused, who was the owner of the grocery shop aforementioned and had kept the Ajowan stored there for sale and that the sample, upon being analyzed by the Public Analyst, had revealed as follows: "Physical: Inorganic matters like small pieces of stone. clay etc., present in excess. Foreign Organic matters: 0.25% Foreign Inorganic matters: 7.30%" 8. The report from the CFL had, however, disclosed as follows: "Physical examination: Excess amount of earthy matter. Inorganic extraneous matter: 6.6% Organic extraneous matter: 0.7% Insect damaged seeds : 0.9% Added coloring matter : Absent. Microscopical examination : Ajowan present, Foreign organic substance absent" 9. clay etc., present in excess. Foreign Organic matters: 0.25% Foreign Inorganic matters: 7.30%" 8. The report from the CFL had, however, disclosed as follows: "Physical examination: Excess amount of earthy matter. Inorganic extraneous matter: 6.6% Organic extraneous matter: 0.7% Insect damaged seeds : 0.9% Added coloring matter : Absent. Microscopical examination : Ajowan present, Foreign organic substance absent" 9. Before proceeding any further, it is also worth noticing that Item No. A0050 23 prescribes the standard of quality for Ajowan as follows : "Ajowan (Bisfiop's weed) means the dried ripe seeds (of Trachy spermum ammi (Linn) Sprague. The proportion of organic and inorganic extraneous matter shall not exceed 3 per cent and 2 percent respectively. The seeds shall be free from living insects, insect fragments and rodent contamination visible to the eyes." 10. On comparing the standard of Ajowan prescribed in Item No. A.05.23 of the PF Act with the report of the public Analyst as well as the CFL, it becomes clear that the sample of Ajowan did not conform to the standard. As per the standard fixed, the inorganic and organic extraneous matters shall not exceed 3 per cent and 2 per cent respectively. The proportion of the organic extraneous matters found by the Public Analyst and the Director of the CFL was not in excess of the standard prescribed by the Rules, but the inorganic extraneous matter, which shall not exceed 2 per 'cent, was found to be 7.30% by the Public Analyst and 6.6% by the Director of the CFL. Though there is a little variation between the two reports, yet the fact remains that the inorganic extraneous matters exceeded the prescribed standard and both Public Analyst as well as the Director of the CFL found clay (earthy matter) present in the Ajowan. The sample was, thus, correctly treated as an adulterated one. The finding of guilt, therefore, reached against the accused by the learned trial Court was correct and the same was correctly upheld by the learned appellate Court. 11. Pleading the case on behalf of the revision petitioner, Mr. S.S. Sarma has submitted that the offence committed by the accused petitioner was a technical one inasmuch as the Ajowan, allegedly found to be adulterated, was, admittedly, not adulterated by mixing colour or any other foreign substance; rather, it was merely unclean and was, therefore, treated as adulterated. 11. Pleading the case on behalf of the revision petitioner, Mr. S.S. Sarma has submitted that the offence committed by the accused petitioner was a technical one inasmuch as the Ajowan, allegedly found to be adulterated, was, admittedly, not adulterated by mixing colour or any other foreign substance; rather, it was merely unclean and was, therefore, treated as adulterated. Since the accused petitioner, according to the evidence on record, contends Mr. Sarma, did not deliberately cause adulteration of Ajowan and he has been suffering mental tension and anxiety of the trial since 1987 and as much as 15 years have already elapsed since the date, when the sample of Ajowan was taken from him, the matter may please be dealt with leniently as has been done in the case of N. Sukumaran Nair Vs. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 101 , wherein the Apex Court, for offence of adulteration committed in 1984, directed payment of the sentence of fine in commutation of the sentence of imprisonment. 12. Notwithstanding what Mr. Sarma has submitted, it is clear that since the evidence on record proved that Ajowan was adulterated, though may not be deliberately, I find nothing wrong in the conviction and the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court. 13. The question, which; now, arises for consideration is, however, this: Should the petitioner be, now, made to undergo imprisonment? 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited the Apex Court judgment reported in N. Sukumaran Nair (Supra) and also Santosh Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation and another reported in (2000) 9 SCC 151 . 15. The instant case is of the year 1987. The learned trial Court convicted the petitioner in the year 1989 and the appellate Court upheld his conviction and sentence in the year 1996. The petitioner has been on bail throughout. In these circumstances, following the dicta of the Apex Court's judgments, I am of the view that it would not be appropriate under the circumstances of the present case to send back the petitioner to jail and I consider it appropriate to commute the sentence of imprisonment. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to deposit in the learned trial Court a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as fine within a period of two months from today in commutation of his sentence of imprisonment. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to deposit in the learned trial Court a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as fine within a period of two months from today in commutation of his sentence of imprisonment. The petitioner may intimate the appropriate State Government that such a fine has been deposited. On deposit of the fine, the State Government may formalize the matter by passing appropriate order(s) under Clause (b) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for commutation of the sentence as aforesaid. 16. With the above observations and directions, this revision shall stand disposed of. 17. No order as to costs. -----------------