P.N. Bakshi, J.
1. The accused-opp. par-ties have been convicted under Sections 18(a)(i)(ii)(ii-a), 27(a) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The accu-sed-opp. party Kishan Pal Singh has . been sentenced to 2 years' R. I. while Raj Pal Singh accused-opp. party has been sentenced to one year's R. I. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the court below was of the opinion that instead of undergoing the substantive terms of imprisonment, the benefit of the First Offenders Proba-tion Act should be extended to them. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ghazia-bad, therefore, passed an order on 11-2-1974 releasing the said oPP. par-ties on probation under the First Of-fenders Probation Act, on their en-tering into a bond of Rs. 5000/- with two sureties of Rs. 2000/- each to ap-pear in court and receive sentence when called upon to do so during the above period, and in the meantime to be of good behaviour. Aggrieved there-by the instant revision has been filed in this Court. No interim order how- ever Plaintiff the sentence we, never suspending the sentence was ob tained from this Court.
2. I have heard the learned coun-sel for the parties and have also peru-sed the impugned order. The appli-cant's counsel contends that the of-fence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for the sale of spurious injections is a serious matter and the accused opp-parties should not be awarded a light sentence for such offences. I am inclined to agree with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, but there are some difficulties in my way.
3. learned Counsel for the opp. parties has pointed out that since no stay order had been passed by this Court m 1974, the alternative sentence which was awarded to the accused-opp. parties by way of a grant of the benefit of the First Offenders Proba-tion Act, by the execution of a per-sonal bond and two-sureties, must have been complied with by now. If that has been done, then the sentence awarded had already been carried out and the opp. parties cannot now be sent to jail again to serve the sentence of imprisonment. If however, those conditions have not been complied with, only then the question of sending the opp. parties to suffer the term of imprisonment could arise. The accused cannot be ordered to suffer a sentence twice for the same offence.
4. learned Counsel for the cant submits that in offences osmetics Act, Offenders Probation be given. He has an from decided cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. There is nothing in law to prevent the application of the First Offenders Probation Act to the Drugs and Cosmetics t. Even according to the a law to date under Food Adulteration of the Fir fenders Probation Act has extended under the provisions of subject to the condition accused is less than 18 years of age. Thus, even in socio-economic offences, there is no absolute prohibition of the application of the First Offenders Probation Act. This, however, does not mean that the said Act should be liberally applied for the offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. In my opinion, even though the application of the First Offenders Probation Act is not expressly excluded to offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, yet courts should be reluctant to apply the same unless there are adequate and special reasons.
5. In the instant case the position appears to be that the accused opp. parties have already been put to a considerable mental, physical and financial strain for about a decade since the proceedings were commenced in February, 1969. Further the PP- parties have already carried out the order of the court below by the execution of bonds of Rs. 5000/- plus two sureties of Rs. 2000/- each. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the opp. parties were manufacturing the injections themselves, which are alleg- ed to have been sold to the Drugs Inspector. Only four injections and no more are in question. Nothing objectionable has come on record to discredit their character and antecedents. They have a fixed place of residence and business. They are not previous convicts. Having regard to all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there did exist adequate reasons for the application of the First Offenders Probation Act in the instant case.
6. With this observations, I do not find any merit in this revision application, which is hereby dismissed.