JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — Judgment and order of conviction dated 14.7.1993 passed under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short ‘the Act, 1954’) against the petitioners by learned J.M.F.C., Bolangir in 2(c) C.C. No.2 of 1992 and the confirming judgment dated 9.1.1996 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir in Criminal Appeal No.48/4 of 1993-94 is under challenge in this Revision. 2. Both the petitioners were charged for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, 1954 on the allegation of run¬ning a grocery shop and selling food articles like sugar, suzi, wheat, etc. without renewing the licence, which was expired in the year 1990. The case was detected on 24.1.1991. Accused per¬sons took the plea of complete denial of the charge. Prosecution relied on both oral and documentary evidence in support of the charge by examining two witnesses and the documents marked Exts. 1 to 3. Accused persons examined one witness in defence. 3. Learned J.M.F.C., Bolangir on 14.7.1993 recorded the order of conviction in the aforesaid 2(c) C.C. case after perusal of such evidence and imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thou¬sand) each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more each. Petitioners unsuccessfully challenged that order of conviction in the Court of Session. That appeal was disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir, vide Criminal Appeal No.48/4 of 1993/94 as per the impugned judgment delivered on 9.1.1996. Learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence on the ground that the maximum punishment provided for the alleged accusation is imprisonment for three months with fine to the extent of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred). Accordingly he imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred) and in de¬fault to undergo imprisonment for seven days. The appellate Court declined to follow the ratio in the cases of Sankarlal Bazaz v. Food Inspector and Health Officer, Cuttack Municipality, Cuttack, 1977 C.L.R. 25, and Ramanjaneyulu v. K.M.Malloji Rao and another, 1978 CRI. LJ.1047, on the ground that the old Act has been re¬placed by new Act in the year 1976. That finding is quoted as follows :- “10.... Learned counsel for the appellants cited two rulings to award only fine to the appellants (vide 1978 Crl. L.J. 1047 and 1977 CLR-25). LJ.1047, on the ground that the old Act has been re¬placed by new Act in the year 1976. That finding is quoted as follows :- “10.... Learned counsel for the appellants cited two rulings to award only fine to the appellants (vide 1978 Crl. L.J. 1047 and 1977 CLR-25). In these 2 cases, the accused persons were convicted under P.F.A. Act, 1954 (old Act), but in the present case, the appellants faced charge for offence U/s. 16(1)(a)(ii) of the New Act, 1976. Section 16 of the P.F.A. Act was drastical¬ly amended and leniency by Magistracy was one of the factors commented upon while discussing the amendment bill. The discre¬tion of Magistrate was taken away particularly by prescribing minimum sentence in almost all cases. So I am reluctant to opine that only sentence of fine will meet the ends of justice...” It may be noted here that the Act, 1954 still holds the field. No. P.F.A. Act came into force in the year 1976 though there was amendment to the Act in the year 1976. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that non-renewal of the licence being the ground for conviction, there is no allegation that petitioners are habitual criminals or had the intention to run the business without obtaining a licence, and therefore the alleged lapses committed by the petitioners is not that grievous so as to deprive them from a lenient sentence. 5. Regard being had to that submission, the objection raised by learned Standing Counsel and the ratio in the above noted two decisions, so far as the present case is concerned, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the same, this Court accepts the contention of the petitioners to impose fine as the alternative mode of punishment but does not lay the ratio that when the minimum sentence is imposed, such alternative mode should be resorted to in each and every case. 6. Accordingly, while confirming the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, 1954, this Court modifies the sentence by imposing fine of Rs.2,500/- (rupees two thousand five hundred) on each of the accused persons and in default of payment of fine each of them shall be liable to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The fine, as undertaken, be paid within a period of six weeks. Cri Rev. disposed of.