STATE OF RAJASHTAN Vs. BANSHI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 378 (i) (iii) CrPC against the judgment and order dated 26.4.1995 whereby the learned Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra, District Baran, held the non-petitioner Banshi Lal guilty of the offence under Sec. 7/16 the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act' of 1954), convicted him as such, and instead of sentencing him to any kind of punishment at that stage of the proceedings directed his release under Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act' of 1958), arises under the following circumstances.

(2.) A complaint for commission of the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Act 1954 was filed by the Food Inspector Atru against the respondent in the court of learned trial Magistrate on 6.1.1989. The accusation made against the respondent was that he had been found selling adulterated Milk at Atru on 21.2.88 and had sold such milk to the Food Inspector. On analysis, the Public Analyst had reported the milk to be adulterated. It appears that after recording the pre-charge evidence, when the respondent was readover and explained charge under Sec. 7/16 of the Act, he pleaded guilty to the charge. The learned Magistrate thereupon heard the parties on the point of sentence and on the lone fact of the respondent having faced the trial for 5 years, extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to him.

(3.) At the very outset, it may be stated that an order under Sec. 3 and/or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is an order appealable under Sec. 11 of that Act. An appeal should have, therefore, been filed by the aggrieved party against the order of the learned Magistrate. No such appeal was reportedly filed in the present case by either of the parties.