JUDGMENT 1. 1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(iii) Criminal Procedure Code challenging the Judgment 28.8.1995 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra Baran (for short, 'the 'learned trial Court') in criminal case No. 633/1993, whereby he released the accused respondent by giving benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act of 1958') for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act of 1954'). 2. Background facts in a nutsheel are that accused respondent continued the restaurant of vegetable and chapati without licence. Food Inspector inspected the site and he obtained sanction from Medical Officer & Health Officer, Kota for prosecution. After following the due procedure a complaint was filed under section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act. 3. The accused respondent was read over the charge for the aforesaid offence. The accused respondent pleaded guilty. Upon this the prosecution closed the evidence. 4. Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded in which he stated that it is his first offence, therefore, he should be pardoned. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 28.8.1995 released the accused-respondent by giving him benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958. 5. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 28.8.1995 passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 6. In this appeal it has been submitted by Mr. B.N. Sandhu, learned Public Prosecutor for the State that the learned trial court has erred in giving the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 to the accused respondent despite considered the statement of complainant. He submits that the offence committed by the accused respondent is social offence whole society is affected thereby. The provisions of Section 7/16 are stringent and under the aforesaid provisions the accused should be punished at-least minimum for a period of six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Section 20-AA of the Act of 1954 is reproduced hereunder : "Section 20-AA. The provisions of Section 7/16 are stringent and under the aforesaid provisions the accused should be punished at-least minimum for a period of six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Section 20-AA of the Act of 1954 is reproduced hereunder : "Section 20-AA. Application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.-Nothing contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958) or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply to a person convicted of an offence under this Act, unless that person is under eighteen years of age." 7. Per contra, learned counsel for he accused respondent submits that the learned trial Court has rightly given the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958. 8. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned Judgment. 9. The Court's attention was drawn on the Judgment of (1) N. Sukumaran Nair V. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, reported in 1995 Cr.L.J. 3651. In Para 2 and 3 of this Judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under : "2. It has vehemently been urged by Mr. V.A. Bobde, learned senior counsel that compliance of Rule 18 was mandatory and since there was an infraction in the instant case, the view of the trial Court deserves to prevail. We fail to see how there is violation of the said Rule. The Food Inspector as PW1 was categoric that he had sent the specimen impression of the seal separately to the Public Analyst under sealed cover. It is true that he did not adduce in evidence the postal receipt vide which the specimen impression of the seal was sent separately. The Food Inspector could be dubbed wrong if his statement had been challenged in cross-examination. As is obvious, the Food Inspector deposed to the observance of the requirement of Rule 18, but at best, can be said not to have introduced corroborative evidence to his word. But, if the word of the Food Inspector is not challenged in cross-examination and is otherwise found corroborated from the report of the Public Analyst wherein the necessary recitals, even though in printed form, are available, compliance of Rule 18 becomes obvious. Such report by the Public Analyst is ex facie evidence. There are methods to challenge the same which were not resorted to. Such report by the Public Analyst is ex facie evidence. There are methods to challenge the same which were not resorted to. We, are, thus, of the view that the High Court was justified in upsetting the order of acquittal on the aforesaid ground. 3. The offence took place in the year 1984, the appellant has been awarded six months' simple imprisonment and has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "the appropriate government" is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. We think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence [where almost a decade has gone to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs. 6,000/- (six) as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalize the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."] (Underlined by me). 10. Further, Court's attention was drawn on the head note of another Judgment of (2) Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2007 Cr.L.R. (SC) 552 , which is quoted as under : "Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 11 read with 16(1) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Sec. 433-Conviction - Commutation of sentence - Conviction with fine of Rs. 1,000/- On appeal High Court enhanced fine to Rs. 5,000/- Application under section 433 Criminal Procedure Code rejected by State Government - Appeal to Supreme Court - Conviction upheld, however, appellant may challenge order passed under section 433 by State Government." 11. Again Court's attention was drawn on Judgment of (3) Santosh Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation and Anr., (2000) 9 SCC 151 , similar view was expressed in the following terms : "We, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial Court a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as fine in commutation of the sentence of 6 months' imprisonment within a period of 6 weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. 10,000/- as fine in commutation of the sentence of 6 months' imprisonment within a period of 6 weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. [On deposit of the fine the State Government may formalize the matter by passing appropriate order under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the meanwhile, the appellant will remain on bail."] (Underlined by me) 12. It is to be noted that in both the cases there was no direction to formalize the sentence. On the other hand it was clearly noted that the State Government may formalize the sentence. 13. In view of the above, the present appeal stands disposed of. I direct the accused respondent to deposit in the trial Court a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalize the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the meantime, the accused respondent shall remain on bail.Appeal disposed of. *******