Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 826 (RAJ)

Babu v. State of Rajasthan

1994-10-18

R.P.SAXENA

body1994
Honble SAXENA, J. – This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 11.4.91 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota whereby he upheld and confirmed the judgment dated 10.8.1988 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kota, convicting the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 (1) (a) (t) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 (in short `the Act) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. (2). Briefly the relevant facts are that on 27.11.1980, Laxmi Chand Jain (PW 1), Food Inspector, Kota, purchased 660 ml. of cow milk from the accu- sed petitioner, who was carrying two cans of cow milk on a cycle in sector No.2, Vigyan Nagar, Kota. The milk was divided into three equal parts, and filled in three dry bottles in the presence of Motbirs. Those samples were duly sealed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and one sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Kota, on the same day along with memoran dum form VII. The said Public Analyst after analysis vide his report dated 3.12.1980 (Ex. P 8) opined that the said sample of cow milk was adulterated because it contained about 13% of added water. The Local (Health) Authority and Chief Medical and Health Officer, Kota, after perusing the relevant record, granted sanction for prosecution Ex. P 8 under Section 20 of the Act. The Food Inspector submitted a criminal complaint in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota, against the petitioner. The petitioner denied the indictment. After trial, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kota, by his judgment dated 10..8.1988 found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 7/16(1)(a)(t) of the Act and sentenced him as indicated above. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota, dismissed the petitioners appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision petition. (3). I have heard Shri Rajendra Yadav, the Learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.A. Khan, the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the learned lower courts in extenso. (4). The learned courts below, after scanning the evidence in this case, have rightly held that there was no violation of provision of non-compliance of Section 10(7) and Section 13(2) of the Act. (5). (4). The learned courts below, after scanning the evidence in this case, have rightly held that there was no violation of provision of non-compliance of Section 10(7) and Section 13(2) of the Act. (5). I fully concur with the reasons given by the learned courts below in this behalf. Therefore, the first contention of Shri Yadav on this count is devoid of any force and substance and the same is hereby repelled. (6). Shri Yadav has lastly contended that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was a young boy below 18 years of age and as such keeping in view the provisions of Section 20 (AA) of the Act, he should be given the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act and released on probation instead of sentencing him. (7). The learned Public Prosecutor straneously contends that the age of the offender on the date of conviction has to be seen and not on the date of commission of the offence. According to him, in the plea recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 313, Cr. P.C. on 26.6.1987, the age of the petitioner was estimated as 25 years and that he was found guilty on 10.8.1988, therefore, the petitioner was not below the age of 18 years and as such the provision of Section 20 (AA) of the Act cannot be pressed into service in this case. (8). In the complaint filed by the Food Inspector and the documents appended thereto, the age of the petitioner has not been mentioned. On 8.9.1981, the petitioner in his plea recorded by the learned trial Magistrate disclosed that his age was 19 years. However, the learned trial Magistrate estimated his age on that day as 23 years. Again, on 26.6.1987, the petitioner in his plea recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. disclosed that his age was 23 years. The aged occurrence took place on 27.11.1980. Therefore, as per the statement of the petitioner, his age on the date of commission of crime was 18 years 2 months and 19 days. Thus, he was more than 19 years on that day. Section 20 (AA) of the Act proclaims that nothing contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or Sec. 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 eighteen years of age. Thus, he was more than 19 years on that day. Section 20 (AA) of the Act proclaims that nothing contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or Sec. 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 eighteen years of age. Therefore, even on the date of commission of crime, the petitioner was above 18 years of age. Suffice to mention that this Act has been anacted to eradicate the menace to public health committing acts of adulterating the essential articles of food. It was with a view to eradicate such anti-social evil and for ensuring purity in the articles of food that the Legislature has intervened and intro- duced Sec. 20-AA. The Legislatures intention in this regard has to be respected and the only exception engraved in section 20-AA is that only the persons under the age of eighteen years, if convicted for an offence in this Act, may be given the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act and or Sec. 360 of the Cr.P.C. (9). Since in the case on hand, the petitioner was above 18 years of age even on the date of commission of crime, he is not entitled to be released on Probation and the provisions of Section 20-AA of the Act cannot be pre- ssed into service. (10). Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, this revision petition fails and the petitioners conviction and sentence are maintained. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kota is directed to issue non-bailable warrants for the arrest of the petitioner to ensure his presence to serve out the sentence. (11). The record of the learned lower court be sent back immediately.