RAJESH BINDAL,J - (1.) THE challenge in the present petition filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. is to the judgment dated March 18, 2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated January 18, 2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra was dismissed.
(2.) THE petitioner in the present case was held guilty under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act'). The allegations are the on June 27, 1995 at 10.00 AM the petitioner was intercepted while in possession of cow milk for sale. Sample was drawn. On analysis, the same was found to be adulterated as milk fat was found to be deficient by 5% and milk solid not fat was 35% deficient of the minimum prescribed standards. The petitioner was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo another simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. The judgment of the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. At the time of issuing notice of motion, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his prayer for release of the petitioner on probation, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had faced protracted trial for 12 long years and that he is a milk vendor.
(3.) WHEN confronted with provision of Section 20-AA of the Act, where there is specific bar to application of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for considering reduction of the sentence awarded to the petitioner. The submission is that the petitioner is a senior citizen. Out of six months sentence awarded to him, he has already undergone about two months actual imprisonment. Reliance has been placed upon Gurdev Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 121(P&H).;