JUDGMENT 1. - By filing instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. the accused petitioners have challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.3.1999 passed by Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act) & Addl. Sessions Judge, Beawar (Rajasthan) (for short 'the trial Court') by which he convicted the accused petitioners for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955') and sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.Without going into merits of the case Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain with Ms. Gayatri Rathore, counsel for the petitioners submits that their prayer is either (sic) to release the accused petitioners for the period already undergone by them in confinement. 2. In the instant case the accused petitioners have already remained in judicial lock up for a period of 28 days, they are old persons, as the alleged occurrence has taken place on 25.8.1990 i.e. almost more than 18 years ago from today and since then they are facing trial, which tantamounts to a mental agony. 3. To support his case Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain with Ms. Gayatri Rathore, has placed reliance upon following judgments : 1. Jai Ram v. The State of Rajasthan, reported in Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1988, 28 , in which the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Head-note has held as under: "Rajasthan Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1967-Cl. 3 and Essential Commodities Act, 1958-Section 3 and Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Criminal Procedure Code-Sec. 360-Distribution of sugar to ration holders-Accused not maintain proper accounts and convicted for contravention of provisions-Held it is not proper to extend benefits of probation of Section 360 (ii) sentence is reduced to already period undergone of 14 days and incident being 13 years old." 2. Rajendra Paleram Agarwal v. The State of Maharashtra, 1992 Cr.L.J. 3525 , wherein the Bombay High Court in Head-note has held as under: "Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1955), Section 7(1)(i) - Sentence-Contravention of Rationing Order - Offence not very grave, considerable time elapsing since commission of offence, accused appellant unemployed, having large family and no other earning member-Sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for three months reduced to one day's Simple Imprisonment already undergone while sentence of fine of Rs. 600/- i.e.r.i for 15 days confirmed, which fine had already been paid. 3. M/s. Jethmal Nandlal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 789 , wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Head-note has held as under: "Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 3/7 - Revision - Conviction not challenged - Prayer for reduction of sentence - Incident 22 years old - Petitioner remained in custody for 4 days - Sentence reduced to already undergone." 4. Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, P.P. vehementally opposed the aforesaid prayer of Mr. Sushil Kr. Jain with Ms. Gayatri Rathore, counsel for the accused petitioner. 5. Court's attention was drawn upon the Judgment of N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, (1997) 9 SCC 101 , in which Hon'ble Apex Court in para 3 of the Judgment has held as under: "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 by. We, therefore, direct the appellant 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." 6. Court's attention was further drawn upon the provisions of section 433 Cr.PC., which is reproduced as under: 433 - Power to Commute Sentence - The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person sentenced commute- (a) a sentence of death, for any other punishment provided by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860); (b) a sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for fine; (c) a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for simple Imprisonment for any term to which that person might have been sentenced, or for fine; (d) a sentence of simple imprisonment, for fine." 7. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case, record of the case made available to me, the Judgment cited by Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, PP. including provisions of Section 433 Cr.P.C. it is clear that the accused petitioner is liable for similar treatment as has been given in the case of N. Sukumaran Nair (supra). 8. In the result, this criminal revision petition is disposed of with the direction to the accused petitioners to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs. 6,000/- (Rs. Six Thousand only) each as fine in commutation of the sentence of three 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 the provisions of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Revision Disposed of with Direction to Accused to Deposit Rs. 6,000/- each in Commutation of Sentence for 3 months. *******