D.L. Mehta, J.
1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 14-11-1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur, convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-.
2. Shri R.N. Shukla, Food Inspector, checked the shop of the accused on 9-8-1974 and purchased 600 grams of wheat flour for analysis. Public Analyst reported that the sample is adulterated being not in confirmity with the prescribed standard of purety. The report of the Public Analyst is Ex.P. 4. The finding of the Public Analyst as under:
3. For this reason the sample was found to be adulterated, Mr. Dhankar appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the judgment of the Court below on number of grounds including that outer-cover was not used. I do not find any force in the submissions made by Mr. Dhankar on merits and maintain the conviction. In the alternative, Mr. Dhankar argued that the offence relates to the year 1974 and the probation should be granted to the petitioner. He has also pointed out that in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr PC the age of the accused-petitioner has been recorded as 23 years and the court has estimated the age as 25 years on 30-4-1982. He has also invited my attention to the statement of the accused recorded as defence witness to show that the accused is below 18 years of age on the relevant date i.e. on 9th August, 1974.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 354 of 1983 decided on 29th October 1987, Bhairu v. State of Rajasthan. This Court in the said judgment has held that after the insertion of Section 20AA, w.e.f. 1-4-1976 this Court has no jurisdiction to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and the provisions of Section 360 Cr.PC. This Court applied the doctrine of exclusion and held that in no case, any Court has jurisdiction to grant probation to any accused under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act unless the person is 18 years of age.
5. In the case of Bhairu (supra) this Court has also held that there is provision for minimum sentence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Court has no jurisdiction at all in any case to reduce the sentence to already undergone if the sentence already undergone is less than the minimum prescribed sentence. Thus, the discretion of the Court in the matter of awarding the sentence has also been excluded to some extent and the discretion of the Court is only beetween minimum and maximum and it cannot reduce the minimum and cannot increase the maximum.
6. This Court in the case of Bhairu has also held that the doctrine of benefit of doubt cannot and should not be stretched to that extent which endangers the life of the nation and the health of the community.
7. Economic offenders generally commit crime against the community, society and the ration. There is a feeling that justice is always at the doors in one form or the other, of those who are having money power and pressure power. Most of the people have started thinking that money power and pressure power cooks the justice. This may or may not be correct.
8. It is also the duty of the Court to invoke the provisions of the law in a way by which the people may feel that the equality is maintained. Priority in one form or the other or special attention may some time lead to the other thinking of the people which should be avoided. In the case of Bhairu, I have decided what has been referred above, recently.
9. Mr. Dhankar, counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the case of Bhairu which has been decided by me, in which I have held that after the amendment of 1976 the provision relating to the probation has been excluded. Mr. Dhankar also relies on this case and submits that the minimum sentence was prescribed in the year 1976. Section 20 AA relating to the probation was also inserted in 1976. He submits that the law which was in existence in the year 1974 will have to be considered and not the law which exists today. I agree with the view of Mr. Dhankar and I hold that the provisions of Section 20-AA will only apply from 1st April 1976 and it cannot be invoked for the cases which were instituted or the cases in which the crime was committed prior to 14-196. Mr. Dhankar submits that once the provisions of Section 20-AA excluded then the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act as well as Section 360 Cr.PC come into picture. I agree with Mr. Dhankar to this extent that the provisions cannot be excluded in toto. However, it depends upon the discretion of the court whether to apply the provisions in the facts and circumstances of the case or not. However, I will make it very clear that the provisions relating to the Probation of Offenders Act are excluded in toto by the insertion of Section 20 AA and the court has no jurisdiction to grant probation in cases which were committed on or after 1st April, 1976. Adulteration of a food is a menace to public health. It is a crime against the society, community and the nation. It cannot be equated with ordinary crime under the Indian Penal Code, which is a crime against the person. In the matter of punishment one must not forget that the crime against the society, community and to the health of the nation should be dealt with an iron hand if we want that the nation should survive. Any leniency in any form may lead to a position which may completely destory the structure and the health of the nation. There is a job now prevailing in the country that it is not very difficult to find unadulterated poison. The Court are the guardian and their duty is to see that the persons who commits economic offences are dealt With an iron hand and not with soft coiner.
10. Mr. Dhankar submits that even after the insertion of Section 20-AA vide Amending Act, 1976, exception has been made for the persons who are under 8 years of age. Mr. Dhankar submits that this law accepts this position even today that the benefit of probation, can be extended to the persons even under the present law which is more stringent to the persons who were below 18 years of age. Taking note of this fact that the court has estimated the age on 30th April, 1982 while recording the statements under Section 313 Cr.PC as 25 years. Thus, the estimate of the court goes to show that on the date of the commission of the crime the accused was below 18 years of age. It will not be out of place here to mention that the accused was sitting on the shop of a petty dealer when the sample was taken and the adulteration which has been found is also O. 23% in one part and O. 21% in other part. Mr. Dhankar has cited before me the case of Sita Ram v. State of Maharashtra (1979 Cr.LJ 1083). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 6 of the judgment extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the persons below 19 years of age. Their Lordships held that, having regard to the young age of accused if the accused is sent back to jail he is likely to be a hardened criminal. The present policy of penology is to reform criminals. Generally rehabilitatory purpose of Probation of Offenders Act is pervasive enough technically to take within limits ims of offence even under the Food Adulteration Act. Ordinarily, I am of the view that even prior to 1976, the Act should not be applied unless special circumstances are available on record No assurances can be taken by the Society with a man whose anti social activities in the disguise of respectable trade jeopardise the health and well being of numerous innocent consumers. Even without amendment in the Food Adulteration Act, ordinarily, I am of the view that the benefit should not be extended, there may be exception to the general rule. In the instant case, the accused was below 18 years of age. The second reasoning for extending the benefit of doubt is that the accused has left business and has joined services. Thus, the cumulative effect of both the factors lead me to consider that it is a fit case in which the benefit of probation should be extended to the accused.
11. In the result, the revision petition is partly accepted. The conviction is maintained, but instead of sentencing the accused-petitioner at once to any punishment, I direct that he be released on his entering into a bond of Rs. 5,000/- with a surety to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years, and, in the mean-time to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The bond will have to be submitted within a period of two months. In case, the bonds are not furnished the court below will sentence the accused in accordance with law.