A.S. Bains, J. - (1.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are as under: Respondent Raja Singh was convicted under section 16(1 )(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the trial Court and sentenced 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. On appeal, his conviction was maintained, but his sentence of imprisonment and fine was set aside and instead he was given the benefit of probation. Hence the present revision petition by the State.
(2.) Mr. Brar, learned counsel for the State, contends that the benefit of probation could not be allowed to the offenders under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The incident took place in the year 1973. The law was amended in the year 1976. Now, under the amended law the offenders under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are not entitled to the benefit of probation, but earlier to that they were entitled to the benefit of probation under section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was in force when the respondent was apprehended and tried. Mr. Brar relies upon a Supreme Court authority which is reported as Prem Ballabh and another Vs. State 1976 (II) FAC 53 , wherein it is observed that the benefit of probation should not be given to such anti social elements. It is true that the offenders under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are not real enemies of the society. (sic) But, in the present case, the appellate Court decided the appeal in the year 1976 and released the respondent-accused on probation for one year. By now his probation period is over. The incident took place in the year 1973. In my considered view, no useful purpose will be served to commit him to jail after a lapse of about six years. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, no interference on the revisional side is called for.
(3.) Accordingly, this petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;