A.S. Bains, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the concurrent Judgments of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court whereby the petitioner was convicted under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further three months rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) Mr. Harinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not addressed on merits but has canvassed that the petitioner is a first offender and he may be given the benefit of probation.
(3.) I have perused the record. The occurrence in the present case took place on May 7, 1975, i.e., before the amendment of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which now prohibits the grant of benefit of probation to the offenders under the Act. The petitioner is a first offender as there is nothing on the record that he is a previous convict. Nothing has been brought to my notice against his character and antecedents by the learned State counsel. While denying him the benefit of probation the Courts below have not given any special reasons with regard to his age, character and antecedents and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. The provisions of sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are mandatory. In its recent judgment reported as Bishnu Deo Shaw Vs. State of West Bengal, 1979 CAR 385 , the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "Special reasons in section 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 for denying the benefit of probation to the petitioner cannot be regarded as special reasons as nothing is adverted to his character and antecedents. There is also no finding by the Courts below that he is a hardened criminal and that it is impossible to reform and rehabilitate him. The object of punishment is not only to be retributive but also to be reformative. The trial Court before denying the benefit of probation to the petitioner should have called for the report of the Probation Officer with regard to his character and antecedents, but it has not done so. In my view, it 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 two years on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000.00 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, undertaking to appear before the Court if and when called upon to do so to receive sentence of imprisonment on default and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. He is further directed to pay litigation costs of Rs. 2,000.00 (Rupees two thousands only) to the State.;