JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the Judgment dated 25.05.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No. 139/1991 whereby he upheld the judgment dated 22.06.1990 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 56/1985 whereby he convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act and has sentenced him to undergo one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo one month's simple Imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Food Inspector submitted a complaint before the learned trial court to the effect that on 20.10.1984, he took sample of Bundi Laddu for examination and on chemical examination from the analyst, the Bundi Laddu was found adulterated and thus the petitioner-accused has committed the offence under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act. 3. The learned trial court, thereafter, framed charge under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act against the petitioner to which petitioner denied and claimed for trial. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses and the petitioner-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated the prosecution case is false and produced DW-1 Kuljas and Bharpoor Singh as DW-2 in defence. 4. The learned trial Court, after hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner accused, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid vide judgment dated 22.06.1990. Aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner-accused preferred appeal before the learned appellate court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.05.1996 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court was affirmed. Hence, this revision petition. 5. This court, vide order dated 05.06.1996, admitted the revision petition for hearing and while suspending the sentence passed in criminal appeal, granted bail to the petitioner-accused. 6. Heard Mr. M.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Mehar, learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Mr. Hence, this revision petition. 5. This court, vide order dated 05.06.1996, admitted the revision petition for hearing and while suspending the sentence passed in criminal appeal, granted bail to the petitioner-accused. 6. Heard Mr. M.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Mehar, learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Mr. Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-accused, without arguing on the merits of the case, placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara [ (1997) 9 SCC 101 ] , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "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. 1000. 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. 6000 as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months' simple Imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and Intimate to be appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." Mr. Garg placed reliance on Ramcharan v. The State of Rajasthan, [2007(1) CJ (Raj.) Cr. 275] also, wherein a coordinate Bench of this court also relied upon the judgment of N. Sukumaran Nair (supra) and ordered to deposit a sum of Rs. 5000/- for commutation of sentence. Mr. Garg further submitted that here, in the instant case also, the matter relates to a complaint filed in the year 1985 and trial court, vide Its judgment dated 22.06.1990, has awarded sentence of one year's simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act and he is facing trial since then and had remained in custody for about 15 days and presently he is about 76 years old, therefore, his sentence may be commuted in fine. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments. 9. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments. 9. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have also gone through the record and impugned judgments. 10. As per the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case of N. Sukumaran Nair (supra), the present case is also a fit case and would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where more than 21/2 decades have gone by. Therefore, the petitioner-accused is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in the trial court as fine in commutation of the aforesaid sentence within a period of two months from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate order under clause (d) of Section 433 Cr.PC. it is made clear that in case petitioner fails to pay the fine as ordered he would serve the sentence as imposed by the learned trial court and confirmed in appeal. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the present revision petition stands disposed of. 12. The record of the courts below be sent back with copy of the order forthwith for compliance.Revision disposed of. *******