RAJBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is:whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of Section 20-AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant, undoubtedly, has been found to be guilty of having committed offence under Section 16(1)((9) read with Section 7 of the Act as the milk that had been purchased from him was found to be adulterated. The appellant raised the contention of applicability of Section 20-AA of the Act on the ground that he was below 18 years of age on the date of commission of the offence. But, the Appellate Court was of the view that since by the time the Court passed the order of conviction he was not below 18 years of age, Section 20-AA will have no application.

(2.) The revision preferred by the appellant was summarily dismissed by the High Court. In paragraph No. 6 of the appellate order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has categorically observed:

(3.) Since on the date of the commission of offence the appellant was below 18 years of age, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 20-AA of the Act read with Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It may be noted that this provision of Section 20-AA was inserted by way of Amendment Act 34 of 1976 w.e.f. 1-4-1976 with some object, the object being a person below 18 years of age would be dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of the Cr. P.C. The Appellate Court, undoubtedly, committed error in coming to the conclusion that the relevant date for applicability of Section 20-AA would be the date of the order of conviction.