JUDGMENT

G.C. Mathur, J. - Indrajeet opposite-party No. 2 was challenged before the City Magistrate, Meerut, for an offence under Section 7116 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated milk. He was found guilty of the offence but, instead of sentencing him, the magistrate released him on Probation under Section 4 of the U. P. First Offenders' Probation Act. Against this order, the Food Inspector went up in revision to the Court of session. The Additional Sessions fudge, Meerut, was of the opinion that the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act was not applicable to the offence under Section 16 (1) which was punishable with a minimum sentence of six months' imprisonment and Rs. 1,000/- fine as, according to him, this Act is not applicable to offences punishable, with a sentence of fine. He was also of opinion that this was not a fit case in which the papers under Section 4 should have been exercised. He has accordingly made this reference for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the magistrate.

2. The main question, which arises for our consideration in this case, is whether the provisions of Section 4 of the U. P. First Offenders' Probation Act are applicable to offences which are punishable with a sentence of imprisonment and fine. Section 4 (1) , with which we are concerned, reads as follows :-

"4 (1) When any person is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or transportation for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the court before which he is convicted regard being had to the age, characters, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the court may, instead of sentencing him atonce to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period not exceeding three years as the court may direct and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour :

Provided that the court shall not direct the release of an offender under this Sec. unless it is satisfied that the offender, or his surety, has a fixed place of abode and regular occupation in the place for which the court acts, or in which the offender is likely to live during the period named for the observance of the conditions:

Provided also that if a person under twenty-one years of age is convicted of any offence under the Indian Penal Code, at any other enactments prescribed in this behalf under rules made by the State Government, which is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six months, the court shall take action under this section unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it does not consider it proper to do so."

3. The Sessions Judge has relied upon the decision of Mukerji, J. in Debi Das v. State, 1953 ALJ 466 wherein he has observed :

"In my judgment, if the First Offenders' Probation Act cannot be invoked in aid by a convicted person who is sentenced to a fine only, for relief, then it follows that a convicted person cannot get relief in respect of a sentence of fine also even though he may have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment as well. I am also of the opinion that the Scheme of the Act clearly indicates that the Legislature contemplated action being taken by courts in the case of first offenders only when they were being sent to jail. The object of the legislation clearly was to provide courts with the power of keeping away first offenders of a certain standard of life or of a certain status from being contaminated by the atmosphere prevailing in jails. The sentence of fine passed on an offender has no such dangers about it. If the intention of the First Offenders' Probation Act were that by taking action under it the stigma of conviction was also to be wiped out then possibly