Judgement

KHANNA, J.: Isher Das appellant was convicted by the judicial magistrate 1st class Patiala for an offence under section 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act No. 37 of 1954) read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of that Act and was ordered to furnish bond under section 4 of the Probation of Haryana High Court during the course of the inspection of the Court of trial magistrate, took the view that an improper order had been made in the above case by the magistrate. The High Court thereupon of its own motion directed that a notice be issued to the appellant. The case was thereafter posted before Bedi, J. The learned judge referred to the fact that a minimum sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000 had been prescribed by section 16 of the Prevention of Good Adulteration Act. It was also observed that offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were against the public and called for deterrent punishment. Order was consequently made that the appellant instead of being released on his furnishing a bond, should be sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.000. default of payment of fine, the appellant was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one and a half month. The appellant thereafter filed this appeal by special leave to this Court. At the time the leave was granted, it was ordered that the appeal would be limited to the question of sentence only.

2. The prosecution case is that on August 1, 1966 the Food Inspector Patiala took a sample of two cups of ice cream from the appellant from Phul cinema canteen on payment of three rupees. Part of the ice cream was sent for analysis to Public Analyst Chandigarh. The analyst reported that the ice cream was adulterated, being deficient in milk fat contents to the extent of 77 per cent and total solid contents to the extent of 7 per cent. The appellant was thereafter prosecuted on the allegation that he had committed an offence under section 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of that Act. Charge was framed on that count against the appellant and he pleaded guilty to the same. The trial magistrate took the view that the appellant, who was aged about 20 years, was in a repentant mood. The appellant was, in the circumstances, directed to furnish bond under S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The bond was thereafter furnished by the appellant. On revision, the sentence was altered by the High Court as mentioned above.

3. In appeal Mr. Kohli on behalf of the appellant has referred to the matriculation certificate which was produced on behalf of the appellant and according to which the date of birth of the appellant was May 8, 1947. It is argued that as the age of the appellant on the date of his conviction by the trial magistrate was less than 20 years, the appellant was rightly given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The High Court, according to the learned counsel, was in error awarding the sentence of imprisonment and fine to the appellant. As against that Mr. Mahajan on behalf of the respondent has contended that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be invoked by an accused convicted of an offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Mr. Mahajan has not disputed that the age of the accused was less than 20 years on the date of his conviction by the trial magistrate, but, according to the learned counsel, that fact could make no difference.

4. There is, in our opinion, considerable force in the stand taken on behalf of the appellant by his learned counsel and we find ourselves unable to accede to the submission made on behalf of the respondent State. The Probation of Offenders Act received the assent of the President on May 16, 1958 and was published in the Gazette of India dated May 19, 1958. According t