S.C.Mittal, J. - (1.) Respondent Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner should have been given benefit of the provisions of section 360 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure and released on probation. With regard to this matter, notice was issued to the State. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal appearing for the State has opposed the request for the release of the accused on probation on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of socio-economic crime. With regard to the gravity of the offence, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal drew my attention to the following observations of the Additional Sessions Judge:- "Adulteration in food articles is a menace which has alarmingly increased. Even the deterrent provisions of section 16(1) of the Act have not achieved the desired object. For such offences which are social evils and are health hazard to the citizens, leniency in the matter of punishment is not called for. As the sample of the syrup in the case in hand was found to be highly contaminated with bacteria and unfit for human consumption, so I do not see any scope for reducing the severity of sentence."
(2.) The facts that the petitioner is said to be a young man of 22 years and not a previous convict and that by chance he happened to be at the shop owned and run by his father do not seem to act as mitigating circumstances.
(3.) As regards the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner (bat the courts below should have given reasons for not applying the provisions of section 360 of the Code, suffice it to say that the observations quoted above are enough to overrule the contention.;