ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Accused-petitioner, by this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has assailed the impugned judgment dated 21.08.2003 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Sriganganagar (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby, the learned appellate Court has maintained the conviction of sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar (learned trial Court) for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this revision petition, are that the Food Inspector submitted a complaint before the learned trial Court against the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Act with a specific allegation that petitioner is supplying milk to the consumers and on analysis, it was found that milk, supplied by him, is not satisfying the standards prescribed by the Public Health Laboratory. The learned trial Court framed charge against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and the accused denied the charge. 3. The prosecution, in support of the complaint, examined four witnesses and seventeen documents exhibited. 4. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and the accused-petitioner also produced two witnesses in his defence. The learned trial Court, thereafter, heard final arguments and by its judgment dated 13.12.2000, convicted the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 of the Act and passed the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, the Court ordered that petitioner shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, the petitioner approached the learned appellate Court but his that effort also proved abortive and the appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.K. Garg, submits that he is not challenging the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 of the Act recorded by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court but his only prayer is for issuance of direction to the State Government to consider case of the petitioner for commutation of sentence. M.K. Garg, submits that he is not challenging the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 of the Act recorded by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court but his only prayer is for issuance of direction to the State Government to consider case of the petitioner for commutation of sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and therefore, his case for commutation of sentence can very well be considered by the Government under Section 433(d) Cr.P.C. In support of this plea, learned counsel has placed reliance on following legal precedents. N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara [1995 SC CANDID 80] Deva v. State of Rajasthan [2015 (2) RLW (Raj.) 1002 ; 2014 (0) Supreme (Raj) 544]. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has not opposed the prayer in general and submitted that in some of the identical cases, directions have been issued by the Court for consideration of commutation of sentence. Learned Public Prosecutor has also placed on record, report dated 30.06.2016 from Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sriganganagar to show the antecedents of the petitioner that he is not a habitual offender. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. A very vital fact that petitioner is not a habitual offender has persuaded me to examine the prayer of the petitioner for commutation of sentence. 10. In N. Sukumaran (supra), Supreme Court examined the matter pertaining to offence under Section 7/16 of the Act on the touchstone of Section 433(d) Cr.P.C. and held : "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. 1,000.00 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. 6,000.00 as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment within a period of six weeks form today and intimate to the appropriate government that such fine has been deposited. We, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs. 6,000.00 as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment within a period of six weeks form 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 Procedures." 11. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Deva(supra) following the said verdict and taking into account the fact that incident is too old, held as under : "9. The offence took place in the year 1981. The accused petitioner has been awarded the imprisonment as indicated above. Under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Cr.P.C. The appropriate government is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. 10. I think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost a decade has gone by. I, therefore, direct the petitioner 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 Cr.P.C. Till then the petitioner will remain on same bail bonds." 12. There remains no quarrel that since conviction of the petitioner, there is nothing adverse against him so as to prove that he is involved in food adulteration. The recitals contained in report of the Chief Medical Health Officer speak volumes about the fact that no case is pending against him. There remains no quarrel that since conviction of the petitioner, there is nothing adverse against him so as to prove that he is involved in food adulteration. The recitals contained in report of the Chief Medical Health Officer speak volumes about the fact that no case is pending against him. The complaint text of the report in vernacular reads as under : " mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ jktkjke iq= Jh nhipUn tkfr Lokeh] fuoklh 4-B NksVh rglhy ,oa ftyk xaxkuxj }kjk nk;j QkStnkjh vihy la[;k 77@2003 ,oa ekuuh; vfrfjDr eq[; U;k;k/kh'k eftLVs~V] Jhxaxkuxj }kjk QkStnkjh izdj.k 476@1997 ds fu.kZ; fnukad 13-12-2000 vUrxZr /kkjk 7@16 [kk| vifeJ.k fuokj.k vf/kfu;e esa nf.Mr fd;k x;kA bl ds lEcU/k esa vki }kjk ;g voxr djok;k x;k gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj esa ;g tkuuk pkgk gS fd izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr ds fo:) gLrxr izdj.k ntZ gksus ds iwoZ rFkk i'pkr~ mijksDr /kkjk 7@16 [kk| vifeJ.k fuokj.k vf/kfu;e ds rgr vkSj dksbZ eqdnek ntZ gqvk gS ;k ughaA bl lEcU/k esa fuosnu gS fd dk;kZy; fjdkMZuqlkj gLrxr izdj.k 478@1997 ds ntZ gksus ls iwoZ 1 tuojh 1991 ls o gLrxr izdj.k 478@1997 ntZ gksus ds i'pkr~ vkt fnukad rFkk /kkjk 7@16 [kk| vifeJ.k fuokj.k vf/kfu;e ds rgr dksbZ vkSj eqdnek ntZ ugha gqvk gSA " 13. In this view of the matter and considering the fact that incident has occurred about two decades back, I deem it just and appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as fine before learned trial Court in commutation of sentence of six months' simple imprisonment within a period of two months from today. After deposition the aforesaid amount, the petitioner may intimate the appropriate Government so as to formalize the matter by passing appropriate orders; under Clause (d) of Section 433 Cr.P.C. Till the matter is formalized by the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner for commutation of sentence, the petitioner shall remain on the same bail bonds. 14. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of.