Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 976 (ALL)

Saroj Mal v. State of U. P

1989-12-19

D.P.S.CHAUHAN

body1989
JUDGMENT D.P.S. Chauhan, J. - The applicant Saroj Mal was convicted in Criminal Case No. 2081/86 under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was sentenced to 6 months' RI. together with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The conviction was challenged in appeal No. 65 of 1987, but the same was dismissed on 5.1.1988. 2. This revision was admitted on 13.1.1988 on the question of sentence. The Court mentioned section 20A of the Food Adulteration Act in the order. It seems to have been subscribed instead of 20AA as section 20A. 3. Since the revision was admitted on the question of sentence, it is not necessary to enter into the merits of the case. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a case where in view of the provisions of section 20AA of the Act, the applicant is entitled for being released on probation of good conduct. 6. From the judgment of the Trial Court, I find that a prayer was made for the release of the applicant on probation of good conduct under section 360, Cr. P.C., which is not applicable in the State of U.P. The provisions of Probation of First Offenders Act, 1958 were made applicable to the District of Bulandshahr and this case also relates to district Bulandshahr. The basic question for consideration in this case is as to what would be the point of time for giving the benefit of section 20AA. Whether it is to be the date of occurrence, or it is to be the date of conviction of the accused. This question is no more res integra. It has been held by this Court that the relevant date is the date of recording conviction. In Nawal Singh v. State of U.P, 1985 (2) FAC 51 this Court held ; "However, before benefit of the said section 20AA is available to any person, convicted of an offence under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it should be under 18 years of age on the date of the conviction and not on the date of the offence. The same view was expressed in a decision, Sheesh Pal v. State, 1981 (1) FAC 417. The same view was expressed in a decision, Sheesh Pal v. State, 1981 (1) FAC 417. It was held therein that the 'wordings' of the said section are clear and go to indicate that the age of the accused on the date of conviction is to be seen. Since on the date of conviction, the appellant was admittedly above 18 years of age, section 20AA could have no application in his case". Similar view was taken in another case Nafees v. State and another, 1983 FAJ 248 similar view was expressed in another case Suresh Pal v. State, 1981(1) FAC 417 where it is held that the wordings of the said section are clear and go to indicate that the age of the accused on the date of conviction is to be seen. 7. In the present case on the date of conviction, the applicant was admittedly over 18 years of age. He is, thus, not entitled for being released on probation of good conduct. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has already suffered about 2 weeks imprisonment and the occurrence is of 1982 and since then the case is pending in one court or the other. He further submits that the applicant in his statement under section 313, Cr. P.C. disclosed his age to be of about 19 years and the applicant is a young lad having no blemish and no earlier conviction and no useful purpose would be served by sending the applicant to prison after lapse of 7 years of the date of occurrence. He placed reliance on a case of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1988 SC 178. This case is not applicable so far as the facts of the present case are concerned. There the time passed off is 11 years from the date of occurrence and one court recorded the acquittal of the applicant, here it is not so. Both the courts below have recorded the concurrent finding of fact. There is no special or adequate reason so to reduce the sentence of imprisonment and also the sentence of fine as imposed on the applicant. I find no merit in the case. 9. The revision is rejected. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged. There is no special or adequate reason so to reduce the sentence of imprisonment and also the sentence of fine as imposed on the applicant. I find no merit in the case. 9. The revision is rejected. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence as imposed on him.