The provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 360 Cr.PC are not excluded in toto by the insertion of Section 20-AA in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and may be applied in appropriate cases, particularly where the accused is below 18 years of age and there are mitigating circumstances.

1. - This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 14-11-1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur, convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-.

2. Shri R.N. Shukla, Food Inspector, checked the shop of the accused on 9-8-1974 and purchased 600 grams of wheat flour for analysis. Public Analyst reported that the sample is adulterated being not in confirmity with the prescribed standard of purety. The report of the Public Analyst is Ex.P. 4. The finding of the Public Analyst as under:

3. For this reason the sample was found to be adulterated, Mr. Dhankar appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the judgment of the Court below on number of grounds including that outer-cover was not used. I do not find any force in the submissions made by Mr. Dhankar on merits and maintain the conviction. In the alternative, Mr. Dhankar argued that the offence relates to the year 1974 and the probation should be granted to the petitioner. He has also pointed out that in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr PC the age of the accused-petitioner has been recorded as 23 years and the court has estimated the age as 25 years on 30-4-1982. He has also invited my attention to the statement of the accused recorded as defence witness to show that the accused is below 18 years of age on the relevant date i.e. on 9th August, 1974.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 354 of 1983 decided on 29th October 1987, Bhairu v. State of Rajasthan . This Court in the said judgment has held that after the insertion of Section 20AA, w.e.f. 1-4-1976 this Court has no jurisdiction to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and the provisions of Section 360 Cr.PC. This Court applied the doctrine of exclusion and held that in no case, any Court has jurisdiction to grant probation to any accused under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act unless the person is 18 years of age.

5. In the case of Bhairu (supra) this Court has also held that there is provision for minimum sentence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Court has no jurisdiction at all in any case to reduce the sentence to already undergone if the sentence already undergone is less than the minimum prescribed sentence. Thus, the discretion of the Court in the matter of awarding the sentence has also been excluded to some extent and the discretion of the Court is only between minimum and maximum and it cannot reduce the minimum and cannot increase the maximum.

6. This Court in the case of Bhairu has also held that the doctrine of benefit of doubt cannot and should not be stretched to that extent which endangers the life of the nation and the health of the community.

7. Economic offenders generally commit crime against the community, society and the ration. There is a feeling that justice is always at the doors in one form or the other, of those who are having money power and pressure power. Most of the people have started thinking that money power and pressure power cooks the justice. This may or may not be correct.

8. It is also the duty of the Court to invoke the provisions of the law in a way by which the people may feel that the equality is maintained. Priority in one form or the other or special attention may some time lead to the other thinking of the people which should be avoided. In the case of Bhairu, I have decided what has been referred above, recently.

9. Mr. Dhankar, counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the case of Bhairu which has been decided by me, in which I have held that after the amendment of