In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 282 of 1995 Date of decision : February 27, 2008 Kanhiya ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Praduman Yadav, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this revision petition is the judgment dated 8.4.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 14.9.1993 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, convicting the petitioner-accused Kanhiya under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. The brief facts of the case which culminated into trial are that on 23.3.1991, at about 6.45 pm, Megh Nath Gupta, Government Food Inspector, intercepted the petitioner at Nigana Feeder and found 35 kgs cow milk for sale in his possession. After serving notice on Form VI as prescribed under the Act he purchased 750 mls of cow milk from him. The said sample was put in three dry and clean bottles and 20 drops of 40% formalin were added as preservative in each bottle. The bottles were then sealed with the seal GFI of Dr. Narvir Singh, DHO, Bhiwani and were also wrapped from top to bottom with a slip Code No.BHW-BH-iii-FI/10 issued by the Local Health Authority, Bhiwani Khera. One sealed bottle along with Form VI was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, who in its report found the sample containing milk fat as 4.7% and milk solid not fat as 8.0%, hence milk solid not fat were deficient by 0.6%. After completion of all the necessary formalities, complaint against the petitioner was presented in the Crl. Revision No. 282 of 1995 -2- *** Court. Notice of accusation was served upon the petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted for trial. In order to substantiate the accusation, the complainant examined Satpal Clerk LHA, Bhiwani Khera (PW1), Megh Nath GFI (PW2), Dr. Narinder Singh SMO Mahendergarh (PW3) and Ishwar Singh (PW4). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication. He further stated that he was not milk vendor by profession. In defence, the petitioner examined Bishan Dass (DW1). The trial ended in conviction. The appeal also failed. Hence this revision petition. Heard. The only argument raised in this case is on the quantum of sentence. The occurrence took place on 23.3.1991 when the sample was seized and the accused has already suffered agony of trial up to 8.4.1995 when he was slapped with conviction. Appeal also remain pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. The trial court observed in its order that date of birth of the petitioner was 22.5.1975 and he was less than 18 years of age at the time of commission of crime, therefore, he should be extended benefit of probation but the request was turned down. But, as per provisions of Section 20-AA of the Act, the petitioner was entitled to this benefit. As per certificate Ex.DA on the file, the petitioner was less than 18 years at the time of commission of the offence. The provisions of Section 20-AA of the Act have been enacted to benefit the persons who were minors and court is to examine the age of the accused at the time of commission of the crime and not thereafter while extending benefit to them under the said provision. Even otherwise the petitioner has no bad antecedents. It may further be observed that as per report of the Public Analyst, the milk fat was 4.7 against the prescribed standard of 4.0%, whereas, milk solids were 8 against 8.5, therefore, the question whether the milk was properly sterilized before taking the sample also becomes debatable. In any case, since the judgment of conviction has not been assailed, therefore, this point need not be gone into. However, Crl. Revision No. 282 of 1995 -3- *** keeping in view the fact that the proceedings in this case are lingering on since the year 1993 and he was below 18 years of age and had no bad antecedents and that he has already suffered imprisonment for about 1- ½ months, I deem it appropriate to extend him the benefit of probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence that the petitioner shall be released on probation to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, failing to comply with the terms of the bonds, he would be ready to serve the sentence as and when called for. February 27, 2008 (A.N.Jindal) deepak Judge To be referred to reporter: Yes/No.