JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present ‘revision petition challenging the judgment dated November 11, 1995. passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby his appeal against the judgment dated February 27, 1992 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh was dismissed and the conviction of the petitioners under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- were maintained.
2. As per the prosecution version, the Government Food Inspector took the sample of milk from the petitioners on November 28, 1985 at about 8.00 a.m. After t he aforesaid sample was got analysed from the Laboratory, the same was found to be adulterated. Accordingly, a complaint was filed under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. After the prosecution led its evidence, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Judge, as aforesaid. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Now, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid judgments of the learned Courts below.
3. I have heard Shri Padamjit Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gautam Dutt, the learned counsel for the UT Administration and with their assistance have also gone through the record.
4. As far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned, the same stands duly proved by the statements of the witnesses, namely, M.K. Sharma PW1 Food Inspector who has stated with regard to taking of the sample from the petitioner. The report of the Public Analyst is Ex. PW2/A. PW2 Surinder Kumar, Assistant in the office of Local Health Authority had brought the summoned record and proved the report. Nothing has been shown to me that the prosecution version suffers from any infirmity or that the judgments of the learned Courts below are in any manner improper. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the learned Courts below is upheld.
5. Faced with this situation, Shri Padamjit Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case the petitioner was found to be in possession of adulterated milk on November 28, 1985 i.e. about more than 17 years back. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated December 4, 1995 and thereafter the petitioner has not been involved in the commission of any criminal offence. Shri Padamjit Singh further submits that since the petitioner has already suffered long and protracted criminal proceedings, therefore, a lenient view of the matter be taken with regard to the sentence imposed upon the petitioner and the petitioner be granted the concession of probation.
6. I find that the prayer made by Shri Padamjit Singh is very just and fair. Although there is a minimum sentence provided under the provisions of the Act but it has been held by this Court in the case of Jog Dhian v. State of Haryana 2001(2) Chandigarh Criminal Cases (HC) 54 that even in a case where there is minimum sentence provided, still a person can be granted the benefit of probation. It is not disputed that in the present case, the petitioner was found in possession of adulterated cow milk. A period of more than 17 years has since elapsed. The petitioner has already suffered long and protracted criminal proceedings. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated December 4, 1995. It is not shown that the petitioner after the concession of bail granted to him has ever misused the same. In these circumstances, while maintaining the order of conviction. I set aside the order of sentence and order that the petitioner shall be released on probation. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on probation on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/8- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh with than undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear and receive sentence during the said period if and when called upon to do so.
7. With the above modification, the present petition is disposed of.