AKHTAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This criminal revision was taken up for final disposal after the revision of the list. No body appears on behalf of the revisionist. I have been taken through the judgment of the court below by the learned Counsel for State.

(2.) In the grounds of revision, one of the points taken up is that on the date when this occurrence took place and the sample was taken, the applicant-revisionist was only 16 years of age and, therefore, this being the first offence committed by him, he should have been granted the benefit of First OffendersT Probation Act. In view of Section 20-AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, this point has been dealt with by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in para-12 of his judgment dated 30.10.1984. His view is that the relevant date for consideration of age in order to grant benefit of First OffendersT Probation Act, would be the date of conviction and not date of the occurrence. This is a sound legal conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. The matter stands concluded by a number of cases. Reference may be made to the case of Nagar Swasthya Adnikai v. Nem Chand, Shishupal v. State, Nafis v. State.

(3.) It appears that the defence witness Ishhaq made a statement that the age of the appellant- revisionist on 20.2.84, when Ishhaq was examined in Court, he was of about 20-22 years. In his statement under sec. 313 Cr. P.C. recorded on 11.1. 82 the revisionist disclosed his age as 22 years. Therefore, on 30.10.1984 when the order of conviction was passed, he was much more than 22 years of age. Hence Section 20-AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act would not be applicable to this case.