NAFIS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been admitted on the point of sentence and the arguments urged are also on that very point. The revisionist Nafis on being convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was awarded one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- was imposed awarding further six months' S. I. in default by the trial court. A sentence of further two months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 250/- was awarded under that Section read with Rule 50 of the P. F. Act by the trial court. In appeal the latter sentence was set aside on the latter count and further on the former count sentence of one year's R. I. was reduced to six months' R. I. while the sentence of Rs. 1000,'- fine and six months' simple imprisonment in its default waff maintained.

(2.) THE first point urged in this revision is that the courts below should have given benefit of probation to the revisionist as he was 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. Section 20-AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act lays down as follows ;-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist relied upon the case of Ghanshyam v. State, 1982 ACrR 175. That was a case under the Children Act and it is expressly stated in that Act that the age of the accused at the time of committing the offence itself is to be considered to determine whether he is covered under the Children Act or not. It is a Division Bench Case of which I was also one of the members of the Bench. That ruling relates to Children Act. In view of the language of that Section while the language of Section 20-AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is different so this ruling will not help.