NOOR MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the Judgment and order passed on 25/7/1984 by Mr. Sushil Kumar, Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar. The learned Judge dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1984 and upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed against the present revisionist by the learned Magistrate. The case was one under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the trial court judgment was delivered by Mr. J.C. Misra, Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar on 13/3/1984. He found the revisionist guilty. convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. It was also provided that in the event of failure to pay the amount of fine the accused was also further to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The occurrence allegedly took place on 17/11/1978 at about 5 in the evening, when it is said that the revisionist was going to sell milk. He was accosted near the Jansath Cinema Hall by the Food Inspector who obtained 660 mt. of sample of milk on payment of Rs. 1.60 P. This was sent to the Analyst and was found to be short in fatty contents by 13 per cent. The case was there fore, started.

(3.) Revision has been admitted on the question of sentence only. Therefore, the concurrent finding of the two Courts below about the factum of occurrence, has not been disputed nor could be disputed. It was brought out in the statement of the accused recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. that his age at the time of his statement was 21 years. This fact was not disputed and the learned Sessions Judge has mentioned is in the last but one paragraph of the judgment, wherein he bas noted that an argument was advanced before him that since the revisionist was a minor on the date of the commission of the offence, he may be granted the benefit of Section 4 of the U.P. First Offenders Probation Act. This plea was, however, rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that on the date of the judgment the applicant was a major, and hence the benefit under section 4 was not to be granted to him.