K.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) Dev Pal Verma, petitioner was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar who convicted him under section 27(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default of payment of fine he has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months; on conviction under section 27(a)(ii) of the Act, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default of payment of fine, he has been further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six mouths. Under section 28 of the Act he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) The petitioner took the matter in appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, contesting the order of conviction. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the petitioner gave his age as 20 years and there was no evidence on the file to suggest if he was more than that age. As in his view, section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act applied to the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge remanded it to the Chief Judicial Magistrate with the observations, "It is a fit case in which conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judl, Magistrate should be set aside and the case remanded to him for recording the finding regarding the age of the appellant and the disposing of the case in accordance with law. If the appellant is really under 21 years of age and if the Probation Officer has nothing to say against his conduct then it would be difficult to deny the benefit of Sec. 6 to him."
(3.) The petitioner has come to this Court in revision, questioning the order of remand.;