P.D.Kudal, J. - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, dated March 31, 1977, whereby the accused-applicant was sentenced to 11/2 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, in default of payment of tine he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The accused was also fined Rs. 100/- for not possessing license for selling milk.
(2.) The only point agitated before this Court is that as the accused-applicant was below 18 years of age at the time of commission of the offence, he should have been given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant drew the attention of the Court to the observations of the learned two courts below on the question of age of the accused at the time of commission of the offence. Both the courts below have not disputed the contention of the accused that at the time of commission of the offence the accused was below 18 years of age.
(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor places reliance on Section 20AAof the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, as amended in 1976 by Act No. 34 of 1976. His contention is that the trend of the Legislature is that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act should not be extended to the accused, if he is above the age of 18 years, though he may be below 21 years of age. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant states that the accused was definitely below the age of 18 years at the time of commission of the offence, and as such, the provisions of Section 20AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are not attracted. On the other hand, it was contended that the provisions of Section 20AA are not retrospective in nature. Reliance was placed on Isher Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1295. In this case their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that: "Adulteration of food is a menace to public health. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been enected with the aim of eradicating that anti-social evil and for ensuring purity in the articles of food. In view of the above object of the Act and the intention of the legislature as revealed by the fact that a minimum sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rupees one thousand has been prescribed, the courts should not lightly resort to the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in the case of persons above 21 years of age found guilty of offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As regards persons under 21 years of age, however, the policy of the law appears to be that such a person in spite of his conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, should not be deprived of the advantage of Probation of Offenders Act which is a beneficent measures and reflects and incorporates the modern approach and latest trend in penology. The sentence of fine cannot also be imposed in such a case as it carries with it the consequence of imprisonment in case the accused fails to pay the fine. As the object of Probation of Offenders Act is to avoid imprisonment of the person covered by the provisions of that Act, the said object cannot be set at naught by imposing a sentence offline which would necessarily entail imprisonment in case there is a default in payment of fine.";