CHUNNI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only prayer in this revision petition is that the case of the accused should be dealt with under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The accused petitioner was convicted under 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954) for having sold cow milk to the Food Inspector, Kota on 8.11.75 and the same having been found to be adulterated. The learned Magistrate sentenced the accused petitioner to 3 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for 3 months. On appeal, the conviction of the accused petitioner was affirmed but the sentence was modified to one month R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer further 3 months R. I.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accused petitioner has already undergone the sentence awarded by the appellate court. It is submitted that the accused petitioner was able to secure an employment as a Ward boy in Maharao Bhim Singh Hospital, Kota in the month of Jan., 1979 and because he was sentenced by the appellate court and has undergone the sentence, he has received a notice as to why his services should not be terminated. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that if the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 is not extended to the petitioner he is likely to lose his job which he has been able to secure after a great difficulty. The accused petitioner has already left the business of vending milk and according to him therefore, it is such an exceptional case in which notwithstanding the fact that the accused petitioner has been convicted and sentenced under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the benefit of Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be extended to him. He has made a reference to a case Arvind Mohan Sinha Vs. Amulya Kumar Biswas and others, (AIR 1974 SC 1818) in which the object of the Act have been dealt with and it has been observed that one of the object of the Act is to reclaim amateur offenders who if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society.