M.M. Punchhi, J. - (1.) The conviction of the petitioner was recorded by the Courts below under section 16(l)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It remains unchallenged in this revision petition. The argument has centred around as to whether the petitioner should be granted probation.
(2.) On the allegations formed the petitioner prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample of milk; It stands proved that on the sight of the jeep carrying the Food Inspector, the petitioner, who was having drums of milk hung alongside his cycle, made good his escape and in the process of it split milk to frustrate the design of the Food Inspector of taking samples thereof. The occurrence took place on 4th Oct., 1974, when section 20-AA of the aforesaid Act, prohibiting grant of probation either under Sec. 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to people above 18 years of age, was not there. It is on that strength that it has been stressed by the learned counsel for the petitions that when the petitioner has not been shown to be a previous convict as also his antecedents and character to be anyway objectionable or depraved, he should be granted the benefit of probation. Reliance was placed on a decision rendered br A.S. Bains, J., in Tarlok Kumar Vs. Punjab State, Criminal Revision No. 1194 of 1978, decided on 3rd Sept., 1980 .
(3.) The petitioner at the time of the commission of the offence was 28 years of age. He has not been shown to be a previous convict. Nothing adverse is forthcoming on the record as to his character and antecedents. Sec. 20-AA of the Act cannot be a bar to this Court in granting probation to the petitioner, since it would be prospective in operation. The alternative prayer of the petitioner that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone cannot be acceded to as the offence under section 16(l)(b) of the Act, (as it stood prior to the amendments made by Act 34 of 1976), would attract a minimum punishment of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00, to which the petitioner has already been sentenced. However, agreeing with the learned counsel, the petitioner can be set on the road of reformation.;