JUDGMENT 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/- 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/- 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 January, 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 Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be extended to him. He has made a reference to a case Arvind Mohan Sinha v. 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. 4. In the Act of 1954, Section 29-AA was introduced by the Amending Act No. 34 of 1976 under which it has been provided that nothing contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply to a person convicted of an offence under this Act unless that person is under 18 years of age. 5. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Prem Ballab and another v. The . State (Delhi Administration) ( 1977 SCC 173 ) refused to extend the benefit of the provisions of the , Act in a case under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 though the sample was taken by the Food Inspector on June 23, 1969 and observed that though the amendment by introducing Section 20-AA in the Act of 1954 would not apply in the present case but it shows the legislative trend which it would not be right for the court to ignore, and observing so the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 was refused. It can therefore be said that in the present case Section 20-A A will not apply and normally the benefit of the provisions of either Section 360 Cr. P. C. or of the Act of 1958 is not extended to the accused in a case under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954. But there still may be cases of the period prior to the amendment of 1976 where an accused has been rehabilitated in his life and has secured the job and has also undergone the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the courts below, the court may consider the case of the accused under the above noted beneficial provisions. The present is the case of that type. The sample of cow milk was taken on November 8, 1975 i. e. before Section 20 AA was introduced in the Act of 1954. The accused has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the appellate court. The present is the case of that type. The sample of cow milk was taken on November 8, 1975 i. e. before Section 20 AA was introduced in the Act of 1954. The accused has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the appellate court. He was appointed vide order dated 3.1.79 as a Ward Boy in the office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Kota. His services have been terminated vide order dated September 15, 1979 with immediate effect, because of the fact that he has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1953 and has been sentenced to undergo one month's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The accused petitioner, therefore, it appears has stopped selling milk and under the circumstances, it cannot be said that if probation is extended to him, he will stay II carry on his nefarious activities. On the other hand, if benefit is not extended, it is most likely that the accused may not be reconsidered for being taken in service because his services have already been terminated with immediate effect by the order dated September 15, 1979. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the case of the accused petitioner should be dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 6. In the result, so far as the merits of the case are concerned, the revision petition is dismissed summarily and taking in to consideration the facts and circumstances as enumerated above, it is hereby directed that the accused petitioner shall be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- and a surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. It is prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 15 days time may be allowed to furnish the bonds as directed by this court. The prayer is allowed.Revision partly allowed. *******