KAMLESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Jalore in Criminal Appeal No. 169/2002, affirming the judgment and order dated 7.2.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore in Criminal Case No. 244/2000, convicting the accused-petitioner for offence under Sec. 7/16(l)(a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the 'Act of 1954') and sentencing him to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000.00; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment.

(2.) At the outset, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the appellant does not want to press the revision petitioner against the order of the Appellate Court affirming the conviction of the accused-petitioner by the Trial Court for offence under Sec. 7/16(l)(a) of the Act of 1954. However, it is submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trial Court should have extended the accused-petitioner the benefits under the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Learned Counsel submitted that, at the time of registration of the case, the accused-petitioner was only 20 years of age. It is submitted that the offence took place about 16 years ago. It is submitted that the sample of the food article (Mawa) was not found to be adulterated rather, the sample of the Mawa taken was found to be deficient by about 15% of the milk fat. Learned Counsel submitted that, this is a fit case wherein the benefit of probation under Sec. 4 of the Act of 1958, should be extended to the accused-petitioner. In support of the contention, learned Counsel has relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Delhi & Anr., 1982 Cr.L.R. (SC) 571 .

(3.) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence committed, the punishment awarded by the Trial Court affirmed by the Appellate Court is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of it revisional jurisdiction.