F.S. Gill, J. - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of Shri H.P. Bagchi, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 20-12-1975, whereby he had maintained the conviction of the petitioner under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, but the sentence of imprisonment and fine were set aside and instead the petitioner was given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. He was, however, ordered to pay compensation to the Corporation to the tune of Rs. 2000/- under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
(2.) The petitioner is running a shop in Ramesh Nagar, Delhi. On 22-10-1973, Food Inspector J.S. Chadha took a sample of Petha sweet which was coloured. The same was sealed in three different bottles. One bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported the presence of coal tar dye which is not permitted. A complaint under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was filed before a learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner of the offence for which he was charged and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. An appeal was preferred in the Court of sessions. The same was heard by H.P. Bagchi, Additional Sessions Judge, who maintained the conviction but gave the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner, as already stated in paragraph ibid. Aggrieved from the said judgment, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has filed this revision petition.
(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the revision by the Municipal Corporation is not competent. He has referred to section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 under which only an appeal can be preferred either by the State Government or by the Central Government with regard to inadequacy of sentence. A revision petition can, however, be filed under sub-section 14) of section 401 of the Code which provides that : "Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.";