Vijay Kumar vs State of Punjab

B.S. Yadav, J.

Vijay Kumar petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, and was sentenced to undergo six months'' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/. Rigorous imprisonment of six months in default of payment of fine was also awarded. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed appeal, which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, who did not find any merit in it and dismissed the same.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that sample of cow''s milk was seized from the petitioner on 22nd June, 1978, and according to the Public Analyst, there was only a marginal deficiency in milk fat, inasmuch as the milk fat contents in the sample were found to be 3.2 percent, while milk solid not fat was 8.8 Percent. He argued that at the time of commission of the offence, the petitioner was about 17 years of age. He drew my attention to the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, on 22nd September, 1980. At that time the petitioner gave his age as 19 years, (the Court has not mentioned that the petitioner appeared to be older than 19 years).

On the basis of these facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in spite of the fact that Section 20AA has been added to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by Act No. 34 of 1976 that nothing contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, shall apply to person convicted of an offence under the Food Adulteration Act, but an exception has been made in that Section in respect of a person who is under 18 years of age. He argued that Parliament was aware of the fact that a person of tender age should not be sent to Jail where he would come in contact with hardened criminals and himself would become as such.

Considering the above arguments and the circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that modern penology leans towards reforming the criminals. I think it a fit case that benefit of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act should be given to the petitioner. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner. I set aside his sentences and order that he be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/ with one surety in the like amount, to appear and receive sentence, when called upon during the above period. In the meantime he is to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The petitioner is, however, ordered to pay Rs. 500/ as costs of the proceedings.

The above bonds to be filed within three months from today to the satisfaction, of the trial Court, failing which the revision shall stand dismissed. This revision is disposed of accordingly.

Revision disposed of