M.S. Joshi, J. - (1.) Shri Vir Bhan Sharma, a Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, purchased from a shop situated in Paharganj 900 grams of fruit juice and a one-third part of it was sent for examination to the Public Analyst. The report received from the Public Analyst by the Municipal Corporation in this behalf showed that the fruit juice was adulterated because of its having been sweetened with saccharine. The Corporation, therefore, submitted a complaint for the prosecution of the vendor of the juice, the firm which owned the shop, Messrs. Jagan Nath Chaman Lal, and the two proprietors of the firm, Chaman Lal and Jagan Nath. As it happened, Vipin Kumar was son of Chaman Lal and Chaman Lal was, in turn, son of Jagan Nath.
(2.) The trial Magistrate found the accused persons guilty but let off Vipin Kumar, a young man of 18 years, under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on the condition of his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety in the like amount for keeping his conduct good for one year and his appearing in the court to receive the punishment as and when required. Chaman Lal was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for non-payment of the fine. Jagan Nath was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months in default. A fine of Rs. 500/- was also imposed on the firm, Messrs. Jagan Nath Chaman Lal. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi is dissatisfied with the quantum of sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate and has come to this Court in revision.
(3.) The statement of Vipin Kumar under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 5-10-1976 and he gave his age, on that date, as 18 years. The Magistrate before whom the accused had been appearing accepted the statement of the accused as correct. The offence was committed on 31-5-1975 which would mean that at that time Vipin Kumar was aged 161/2 years only. It was not urged before the Magistrate nor is it the prosecution's case here that Vipin Kumar had committed any offence in the past. There is no justification in the situation for holding the order of the Magistrate granting the benefit of probation to Vipin Kumar as erroneous.;