I.P.Singh - (1.) NAWAL Singh, revisionist, was convicted and sentenced by Sri B. Lal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, on 8-9-1980 in Criminal Case No. 1140 of 1979 for offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to six months' RI and fine of Rs. 1,000/- or, in default of payment thereof, to further 4 months' RI. His Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1980 was dismissed by Sri R. P. Singh, Vuh Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr on 29-7-1981 and the sentence imposed upon him was confirmed. NAWAL Singh has, therefore, filed the present criminal revision.
(2.) HIS above conviction and sentence arose out of an incident of 15-5- 1977 when the Food Inspector had taken a sample of milk which was subsequently found adulterated by the public analyst inasmuch as the milk sample was found deficient in non-fatty solids by 12 per cent. Hon'ble V. N. Misra, J. by his order dated 27-8-1982 found difficulty in agreeing with some of the decisions referred to in his said order and desired constitution of a larger Bench by the; Hon'ble the Chief Justice for an authoritative decision on the following question : " Whether milk in which non-fatty solids alone are found deficient and less than prescribed standard would be deemed to be adulterated or not ?". The matter was referred to the Division Blench and the Hon'ble Judges by their order dated 29-11-1984 placing reliance on the Full Bench decision in Prem Das v. State, 1961 AWR 405 and Division Bench decision by this Court in State of U. P. v. Safri Ram, 1963 AWR 768, were of the opinion that "milk must be held to be adulterated even if it is found to be deficient only in non-fatty solids. " Accordingly, the milk sample in question which is the subject matter of the present criminal revision was adulterated.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist: has submitted that Nawal Singh, revisionist, in his statement under section 312 CrPC recorded on 13-6-1980 gave out his age as 18 which fact was not challenged by the prosecution, so on the date of the offence, i. e. on 15-5-1977 he was a minor boy of 15 only. LEARNED counsel argued that the appellant should be given the benefit of section 20-AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The said section runs as follows: " 20-AA. Application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 :- Nothing contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958) or section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply to a person convicted of an offence under this Act unless that person is under eighteen years of age. " This section means that in cases to which the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, apply; then, benefit thereunder would be given to the person convicted of an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act only if he is under 18 years of age.;