SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (i) (iii) Cr. P. C. challenging the Judgment 4. 4. 1995 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra (for short `the learned trial Court') in criminal case No. 639/1993, whereby he released the accused respondent by giving benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short `the Act of 1958') for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short `the Act of 1954' ).
(2.) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are that on 17. 11. 1987 at 7:15 AM, Food Inspector, recovered adultered milk from the possession of Ram Chand. Upon this Food Inspector made a phard of site and after making payment, he purchased the milk for sample. After following the due procedure a complaint was filed u/s. 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act. Charge was framed against the accused respondent for the aforesaid offence and after framing the same, it was read over the explained to the accused respondent. The accused respondent pleaded guilty. Upon this the prosecution closed the evidence. On the point of sentence, accused, accused counsel as also Assistant Public Prosecutor was heard. Learned counsel for the accused respondent submitted before the learned trial Court that it is his first offence, therefore, he should be pardoned. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 4. 4. 1995 released the accused-respondent by giving him benefit of section 4 of the Act of 1958. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 4. 4. 1995 passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal.
(3.) IN this appeal it has been submitted by Mr. B. N. Sandhu, learned Public Prosecutor for the State that the learned trial Court has erred in giving the benefit of section 4 of the Act of 1958 to the accused respondent despite considered the statement of complainant. He submits that the offence committed by the accused respondent is social offence whole society is affected thereby. The provisions of Section 7/16 are stringent and under the aforesaid provisions the accused should be punished at-least minimum for a period of six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Section 20aa of the Act of 1954 is reproduced hereunder:      " Section 20-AA. Application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.- Nothing contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958) or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 to 1974) shall apply to a person convicted of an offence under this Act, unless that person is under eighteen years of age. " Per contra, learned counsel for he accused respondent Mr. Arvind Bhardwaj, submits that the learned trial Court has rightly given the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned Judgment. ;