MAJID KHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS regards the evidence it is true that the independent witness Shambhulal has not supported the testimony of the Food Inspector, but the Food Inspector has proved with the support of the documents that he has purchased the milk after following the procedure prescribed under the Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THEREFORE , in this revision I do not want to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. As regards the extension of benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused, I do not see any error on that ground also because in his statement the accused has shown his ageas35 years in 1983. So in 1979 he may be about 30 -31 years of age. However, the fact of the offence having been committed about 14 years back and the case remaining pending for this period for no fault of the applicant, makes out a case for taking a lenient view in the matter.