HARISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harish Chandra has come up in revision against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kumaun dated 21st June, 1973, by which he upheld the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haldwani, dated 29th Dec., 1972, convicting him for an offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to six months' R.I.

(2.) When the revision application came up for admission, I was satisfied that the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the applicant was guilty of committing an offence punishable under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act did not call for any interference. I, however, admitted the revision application for considering the question whether the applicant could be given the benefit of U.P. First Offenders Probation Act.

(3.) A perusal of the judgment of the Magistrate shows that during the trial the prosecution produced a certified copy of the judgment in Criminal Case No. 875 of 1971 of police station Haldwani, State Vs. Harish Chandra which showed the applicant had been, on 11th Feb., 1972, convicted of an offence for selling adulterated milk and that he had been fined Rs. 250 in that connection. It is thus clear that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the applicant had been convicted of an offence earlier. In the circumstances, no question of giving the benefit of the provisions of U.P. First Offenders Probation Act to the applicant arises.