Ajit Singh Bains, J. - (1.) The petitioner was convicted under section 7 read with section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months, by Shri S. S. Sohal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, maintained the conviction of the petitioner, but reduced his sentence of imprisonment to 6 months. The sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine was also reduced to 11/2 months' rigorous imprisonment. However, the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000.00 being the minimum was maintained. He has challenged his conviction and sentence by way of this revision petition.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner did not address on merits, but only submitted that the petitioner is a first offender and prayed that he may be given the benefit of probation.
(3.) The occurrence in the present case took place before the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was amended, so the petitioner can be given the benefit of probation. I have also perused the record. There is nothing on the record to show that the 'petitioner is not a first offender. There is nothing against his character and actecedents. The Courts below have denied him the benefit of probation. The Legislature by including Sections 360 and 361 in the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, intended to reform certain categories of offenders by giving them the benefit of probation, where it is possible. It is only by giving special reasons under section 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that this benefit can be denied by the Court. The special reasons are to be in regard to the age, character, antecedents and other circumstances in which the offence was committed. Reference in this connection may be made to a recent authority of the Supreme Court reported as Bishnu Deo Shaw Vs. State of West Bengal, 1979 C. A. R. 385 , wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "Special reasons' in Sec. 361, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 means to compel the Court to hold that it is impossible to reform and rehabilitate the offender with due regard to his age, character, antecedents and circumstances in which offence was committed." In the present case, the reasons given by the Courts below cannot be regarded as special reasons as nothing is adverted to the character and antecedents of the petitioner. The benefit of probation can also be denied to those offenders who are either hardened criminal or who are incorrigible and there is no possibility to reform them. There is no such thing that the petitioner is a hardened f criminal. In my view, it is is a fit case where the petitioner should be given the benefit of probation. Accordingly, his conviction is maintained, but his sentence of imprisonment and fine is set aside and it is directed that he shall be released on probation for a period of one year on his executing a bond in the sura of Rs. 5000.00 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, undertaking to appeal before the court if and when called upon to do so to receive sentence of imprisonment in default and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. He is further directed to pay Rs. 2,000.00 as litigation costs to the State.;