BALIRAMGANPAT GAIKWAD Vs. KATANSINGH LALSINGH PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is revision application directed against the order of sentence passed against the original accused No. 2 for the offence under section 7 (i) r. w. s. (16) (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,(hereinafter referred to as "the said Act ")

(2.) Originally, there were two accused. It was alleged that accused No. 2 was acting as an agent of accused No. 1 at the relvent time. The complainant-Food Inspector had collected the sample of milk from accused No. 2 after following the due procedure. The said sample was adulterated as per the public analyst's report. Both the accused were, therefore, charge-sheeted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon. The learned Magistrate found that it was noit proved that accused No.2 was acting as the agent of accused No. 1 and he, therefore, acquitted accused No. 1 of the offence with which he was charged. However, he found accused No, 2 guilty of selling adulterated milk and convicted him for the offence section 7 (i) r.w.s. 16 (a) of the said Act and sentenced him to R.I. for 7 days and to Pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default to R. I. for one month. Since the offence was under section 2(1) (d) of the Act and provisions of section (2) (1) (2) did not apply, learned Magistrate had no discretion to give less than the minimum sentence under section 16 of the said Act, Hence the tom- plainted-Food Inspector has preferred this revision application against the order of sentence.

(3.) At the hearing of the application, Mr. Kotwal the learned Counsel for responpent No. 1 i. e. original accused No. 2, pointed out that whatever may be the merits of the contentions raised by the complainant, admittedly accused No. 2 was of 19 years of age on the date of the commission of the offence. He was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. There was no previous conviction or miscoduct to the credit of the said accused. He, therefore, strongly urged that this was not the case for interference with the sentence, assuming that sentence was less than minimum sentence,