(1.) This revision' is directed to against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dated 27th Jan. 1977, upholding the conviction of the applicant under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) Counsel appearing for the applicant urged that the appellate court was found to decide the appeal on merits irrespective of the fact the same was not argued by the counsel appearing for the applicant before him. He urged that Sec. 354 Cr. P.C. makes it incumbent on the appellate court to decide the case on merits. 1 am not impressed by the argument advanced by the learned counsel in the appeal the appellant confined his arguments to the question of sentence only. Assuming that the appellate court ought to have decided the case on merits despite the said concession, I am not prepared to exercise the discretionary power of revision in the instant case. The discretion exercised in such a case would result in multiplicity of proceedings, moreover, a person who did not argue the case cannot make a complaint that the same was not decided on merits. In fact the applicant admitted before the trial court that milk was adulterated and that he be given the benefit of Sec. 4 of the U.P. First Offenders Probation Act. On this ground alone the appeal was pressed before the appellate court.
(3.) The next argument was that the applicant ought to have been given the benefit of Sec. 4 of the U.P. First Offenders Probation Act. In Prem Ballabh Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1977 SC 56, it has been held that as adulteration is an economic offence prompted by profit motive the benefit of Sec. 4 of the First Offenders Probation Act cannot be extended in such case.