BANSI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. By this Criminal Revision, the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 62/99 dated 14-9-2000 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention .of Food Adulteration Act and upheld the sentence awarded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, i.e., one year RI together with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged various grounds but ultimately has confined his arguments to the question of sentence. He submits that the petitioner, at the time of commission of the offence, was 16 years of age and, therefore, relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajbir v. State of Haryana, wherein the Supreme Court has held that by the insertion of Section 20-AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by way of an amendment, if a person is below the age of 18 years then he can be dealt with under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) In this case, the petitioner was below the age of 18 years on the date of commission of the offence. In this view of the matter, in the present case, since the petitioner was below the age of 18 years at the time of commission of the offence and there is no allegation that the petitioner is a previous convict and keeping in view the circumstances and the fact that the offence of which the petitioner has been convicted and the fact that the offence is not punishable for life imprisonment, he deserves the benefit under Section 4 the Probation of Offenders Act.

(3.) In this circumstance, while maintaining conviction of the petitioner, the sentence imprisonment and fine as awarded to him is set aside. Having regard to the facts and circumstances including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is considered expedient to release him on probation of good conduct and, therefore, it is directed that the petitioner be released for a period of one year from the date of his release on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence as and when called for during such period and, in the meantime, the petitioner shall keep peace and be of a good behaviour. The requisite bond be furnished by the petitioner and the surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court! CMM. The fine, if already, paid, is directed to be treated as cost of the proceedings.