Full Judgment
V.S. Dave, J.
1. After arguing for some time on merits, learned Counsel for the petitioner prssed this revision petition only on the point of sentence and in my opinion rightly so, since there is concurrent finding of fact. The submission of the learned Counsel for petitioner for his contention about reduction of sentence is that the offence relates to prior to the amendment in law when there was no mandatory provision of minimum sentence and at that point of time there was no bar for dealing such cases under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is submitted that in this case the sample was taken on January 21, 1976, and it is past more than 12 years that the accused has been facing trial. The submission of the learned Counsel is that pendency of the case for such a long time has resulted in complete financial wreckage of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was a hawker who was carrying a small quantity of milk in a cane on his cycle and that he is a poor villager from backward classes. It is also submitted that the courts below erred in rejecting the prayer for dealing the petitioner the under provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, even though the amendments in Section 20AA have been brought on statute on 1-4-1976. The appellate court has in this respect relied on Pappu v. The State of Rajasthan 1988 Cr.LR 30. I have gone through the aforesaid case. In this case at page 31 my brother Justice Mehta has only observed that ordinarily he is of the view that the benefit should not be extended, he how ever held there may be exception to the general rule, and in that very case his Lordship considering the case as an exceptional has granted benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. The judgment has been read by the learned appellate Judge in between the lines.
2. As against this, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Isher Das v. The State of Punjab : 1972 CriLJ874 applied provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. How ever the Court stated that it should not be given as a general rule. In Munni Lal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1985 RLR 1 also this court extended the benefit of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. In Puramjit Singh v. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. AIR 1982 SC 1005 also the offence was committed 13 years before and as such the court considered the delay to be an appropriate ground for extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act in case under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that instead of giving the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act if the accused is left on sentence already undergone by him for the reasons to be recorded and enhance the fine, it would better meet the ends of justice.
4. I have given my consideration to the rival contentions and considered all the circumstances. The petitioner is unlicenced milk vendor who had a small quantity of milk carrying on a cycle from which a sample was obtained on January 21, 1976, and the sample was not found according to the standard prescribed as it had added water to it. As the case is not governed by the amended law and is going on for last 12 years against the petitioner as aforesaid and that he is a petty hawker, I deem it proper to extend him the benefit of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act.
5. In the result, this revision-petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused petitioner is maintained for offence under Section 7/16 of the Probation of Food Adulteration Act but he is given the benefit of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. I, therefore, direct that the petitioner shall be released on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the trial court to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years.