BADAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question has been referred to us for opinion: Can benefit of the U. P. First Offenders' Probation Act, 1053 (?) or the benefit of Section 260, Cr. P. C. (New) be allowed to an accused who is found guilty of an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act No. XXXVII of 1954), to which the proviso to Section 16 of the Act does not apply?

(2.) IT appears from the referring order that the accused Badan Singh was held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as he was found keeping exposed for sale Haldi which was 100 per cent insect infected. The article was thus adulterated within the meaning of Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. It was not disputed that the proviso to Section 16 of the Act was not attracted and as such he was liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than six months and with fine not less than Rs. 1,000/ -. H. N. Kapoor, J. apparently found it difficult to agree with the view of Bakshi, J in Ram Bahadur v. State 1975 Cri LJ 1279 (All) to the effect that the benefit of U. P. First Offenders' Probation Act, 1938 can be granted only in that class of cases which fall within the proviso (i) or (ii) of Section 16 and referred the above noted question for consideration by a Bench. The question for consideration is whether the benefit of U. P. First Offenders' Probation Act could be extended in such a case.

(3.) THE relevant portion of subsection (1) of Section 4 reads as under: