NARAIN DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned judgments have been read with the assistance rendered by the counsel of the parties. I do not see any legal infirmity in the impugned judgments so far as the conviction part is concerned.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner in the alternative urged that the petitioner may be visited with leniency in the matter of sentence as he was a minor on the date of the commission of offence and in this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon certificate Ex. D.2 and the statement of Nihal Singh DW.2 which were relied upon in the trial court. In this regard I would like to reproduce the discussion of the learned trial Court which is as follows :-

(3.) NO doubt, the cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act should be seen with strictness yet keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is suffering agony of protracted trial since 1982 and that he was less than 18 years on the date of commission of offence, the ends of justice would suffice if the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation.