The main legal point established is that the First Offenders Probation Act, 1938, applies to offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and the court has the discretion to provide the benefit of probation based on the nature of the offence and the age of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. This revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 28.01.2004 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), District Sonbhadra, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1998 (Virendra Kumar Vs. State), preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.02.1998 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Duddhi, District Sonbhadra in Criminal Case No. 228 of 1987 (State Vs. Shyam Sundar Agrahari and another), under Section 7/16 of Food Adulteration Act, Police Station Shakti Nagar, District Sonbhadra, convicting and sentencing the revisionist under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Act, 1954’) with a punishment of six months rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulation.

2. Heard Shri Gajendra Pratap Singh, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Satyendra Prakash Srivastava, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Suresh Bahadur Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the complaint was filed in the year 1986 and the revisionist was convicted and sentenced by the trial court for six months rigorous imprisonment in the year, 1998, which judgment and order was affirmed by the learned appellate court in the year, 2004. The date of birth of the revisionist is 25.10.1968 and on the date of alleged incident he was aged about 17 years, 07 months 23 days and as such at that time he was minor and by now 36 years have already been elapsed. The delay in trial deprives the right of the revisionist of speedy trial and he may be given benefit of first offender under the provisions of the U.P. First Offenders Probation Act, 1938 (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Act, 1938’). In support of his submission he placed reliance upon a judgment given by this Court in the case of Badan Singh Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No. 2066 of 1973 (decided on 31.03.1976).

4. From perusal of impugned order of conviction it appears that the accused-revisionist was held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as he was found keeping exposed for sale Gram Pulses which was found adulterated with 9.86% Khesari which is prohibited. The article was thus adulterated within the meaning of clause (f) of sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, 1954. It was not disputed that the provision to Section 16 of the Act was not attracted and as such he was liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than six months and with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

5. The relevant portion of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, 1938 reads as under:

(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, character, 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 at once 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 ……….

Provided also that if a person under twenty-one years of age is convicted of any offence under the Indian Penal Code, or 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.

6. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act is applicab