KODU LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, admitted on the point of age only, revisionist Kodu Lal is said to be a shop keeper of Tindwari, District Banda. On 30th July, 1981 sample of mustard oil was taken from the shop. It was found adulterated with linceed oil. Magistrate convicted the revisionist with offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It appears that it was contended before the Magistrate that revisionist is aged about 25 years. Learned Magistrate, unfortunately, did not mention age of the revisionist in judgment nor recorded any finding on the contention raised that revisionist is aged 25 years. Even in appel late judgment or of the revisionist was not mentioned. In this revision' affidavit has been filed which shows that even in 1985 revisionist was aged 75 years. There is no counter affidavit. Now the matter is 9 1/2 years old and further enquiry into the age of the revisionist would simply pr prolong the case without any benefit to the society. Considering the materials on record I hold that on the date of incident revisionist was 70 years old. 2. Now the question is whether sending of the revisionist to jail at the age of about 80 years would serve any useful purpose Section 20-AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act bars probation unless persons convicted of the offence "is under 18 years of age". It is evident that the Parliament was conscious of the fact that age should be a relevant consideration for granting probation. It is true that in Section 20-AA exception has not been made in respect of an old age. But when the parliament made exception in respect of tender age, which is normally under12 years of age, it follows that the parliament intended benefit of probation to old people and particularly those who were 70 years of age on the date of offence. At any rate, now sending of the revisionist to jail is not likely It serve any useful purpose. On the other hand purpose of the society can be served by requiring the revisionist to pay compensation under Section 5 of the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act. 3. In result I partly allow this revision and set aside the sentence of the revisionist. He is granted first offenders benefit under Section 4 of the U. P. First Offenders Proba tion Act. He shall be summoned by the C. J. M. Banda and required to furnish his personal bond and two sureties for his good behaviour for a period of one year to the satisfaction of the C. J. M. concerned. He shall further pay compensation of Rs. 1000. 00 under Section 5 of the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act within two months, failing which the same shall be realised from him as fine. Revision Partly Allowed .