(1.) THE petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months, under section 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the trial Magistrate The appeal was carried to the Court of Session where it failed substantially in as much as the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from six months to three months. The petitioner came up in revision in this Court. The same was admitted by M.M. Punchhi. J., vide his order dated 5th January, 1982.
(2.) MR . S.S. Rathor, learned counsel for the petitioner has not addressed me on the merits. He submits that the petitioner is not a previous convict he has been facing the trial since long and has been on bail under the orders of this Court since Jaunary, 1982, and that the milk solids not fats in the sample of milk were 7.9 per cent as against the minimum prescribed standard of 8.5 per cent. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may not be sent to jail. I agree with the learned counsel and feel that no useful purpose would served by sending the petitioner to jail at this stage. Although, in view of section 20AA of the Prevention of Food Adheration Act now the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act cannot be given to the petitioner but the offence in this case was, committed long time back when the Courts had the power in appropriate cases to, release the offenders on probation. Consequently, I dispense with the awarding of the minimum sentence prescribed under the law. suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner and order that he be released on probation on his furnishing within two months to the satisfaction, of the trial Court a bond in the sum of three thousand rupees with one surety in the like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear to receive the sentence when called upon to do so in the meantime. The fine imposed on the petitioner is converted into litigation expenses payable to the State. The petitioner is a Peon in the Electricity Board. In view of the provisions of section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act no disqualification would attach to the petitioner due to his conviction. But for this modification this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.