DEPUTY LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Bs. 1,000/ -. In default of payment of fine he is to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. His conviction and sentence have been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad. Hence this revision which was admitted by me on the question of sentence.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case the sample of milk which was taken from the possession of the accused applicant was sent to the Public Analyst for report. The sample contained 4. 6 per cent fat and 8. 5 per cent non-fatty solids. The minimum prescribed standard of milk is 6 per cent fat and 9 per cent non-fatty solids. On these facts, which have been established, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

(3.) COUNSEL for the applicant has submitted that the accused has been in jail for three months. There is nothing on the record to Indicate that he is a previous convict. As such he should be given the benefit of the First Offenders Probation Act, The Supreme Court has ruled in the decision reported in Prem Ballab v. State (Delhi Administration) that Courts should discourage the applicability of the First Offenders Probation Act to offenders who commit socio-economic offences. The tendency to adulterate food stuff is on the increase. It is highly detrimental to public health. As such I am very reluctant to give the benefit of the aforesaid Act to the applicant. Even on the ground of age it is obvious that the applicant was about 24 years of age on the date of the commission of the offence. In my view, therefore, this is not a fit case where the applicant should be allowed the benefit of the aforesaid Act