JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs, 1000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Aggrieved by this order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated April 18, 1978, the petitioner filed an appeal but without any success. 2. According to the prosecution, Food Inspector Shri Kishan Narain Bohra took sample of the milk from the accused-petitioner on September 24, 1975. The milk was sent for analytical examination and it was found that there was an adulteration in the milk. The present revision is filed against the order of Sessions Judge Balotra dated May 18, 1979 by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and his conviction and sentence was upheld. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner simply submitted that the petitioner is a young boy of 21 years of age. He is not a previous convict and so he should be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 5. This is correct the say that the petitioner is not a previous convict. The case against the petitioner was instituted in the year 1975 and since then the matter is pending. According to the report of the Public Analyst the deficiency in the milk was marginal and it was .6% less than the prescribed standard. I think, it is a fit case where the awarding of minimum sentence prescribed under the law should be dispensed with. The case is pending for the last about 15 years. There is no point in sending the petitioner in Jail. Although in view of section 20AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, now the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act cannot be given to the petitioner. But the offence in this case was committed long back when the Courts had the power in appropriate cases to release the offenders on probation. 6. Consequently, I suspend his sentence and order that the petitioner may be re-lased on probation on entering into a bond of Rs. But the offence in this case was committed long back when the Courts had the power in appropriate cases to release the offenders on probation. 6. Consequently, I suspend his sentence and order that the petitioner may be re-lased on probation on entering into a bond of Rs. 3000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year to the satisfaction of the trial court and undertaking to appear in Court to receive the sentence during the said period whenever called upon to do so and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behaviour. 7. The revision is, therefore, accepted to this limited extent that he has been given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner is upheld but instead of undergoing the sentence, the petitioner is released on probation as ordered above. *******