RAMJANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision Petition arising out of the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota on 19/3/1983, confirming the sentence passed by learned Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kota, under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to six months, rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/and in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment for one month (S.I.).

(2.) The petitioner was checked by the Food Inspector on 11/10/1973 and sample of milk was collected, which was found to be adulterated on analysis and, on trial be was found guilty and sentenced to six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and In default of payment of fit to further undergo three months simple imprisonment, by the trial Court by its judgment dated 20/4/1977. On appeal the learned Additional Session Judge, Kota remanded the case for ascertaining the age of the accused-petitioner before and then award the sentence. On remand, the trial Court found that the accused-petitioner was below 20 years of age on the date of occurrence, but declined to give him the benefit of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act and sentenced the accused-petitioner to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment, to further undergo one months simple imprisonment vide his judgment dated 5.11.1981. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Session Judge No. 2, Kota. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) Mr. Tyagi, learned counsel for the accused petitioner, has submitted that the report from the Probation Officer was also obtained and who had recommended the case of the petitioner for being released on probation and as the accused-petitioner was net her a prior convict nor any other case was pending against him, but in spite of favourable report by the Probation Officer neither the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act was granted to him nor the benefit of Section 3609 Cr. P. C. Was afforded to him. The incident is of 1973. The petitioner has been facing trial since 1974. He has also submitted that the petitioner is not a regular milk vendor and has no licence for selling the milk. The defence of the petitioner was that he was carrying the milk for him own use required for the feast on the occasion of the birth day of his nephew. However, he has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner and this Court would not like to go into the merits of the case in its revisional jurisdiction. He has only submitted that he should be granted benefit of the probation of offenders Act.