M.R.A. Ansari, J.
(1) The Municipal Corpora corporation Delhi filed a complaint against the petitioner for an offence under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with the allegation that on 8th December, 1966, the. petitioner had sold Ladoo to the Food Inspector of the Corporation which on analysis was found to beadulterated due to the use of unpermitted colour. The petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge framed against him and prayed for a lenient sentence on the ground that he was a patient. His plea was supported by. a medical certificate. The learned Magistrate also found from the appearance of the petitioner that his condition was deteriorating. In view of the special circumstances, the learned Magistrate while convicting the petitioner under sections 7/16 of the Act passed a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. l,200.00 .
(2) The Municipal Corporation filed a revision i.i the Court of Session against the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and contended that the offence for which the petitioner was convicted was punishable with aminimum sentence of imprisonment for six months. This revision petition was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi- on 15th January, 1968. Thereupon the Corporation has filed the present revision petition in this Court.
(3) There can be no doubt that the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court passed by the learned Magistrate was not in accordance with law in as much as the offence for which the. petitioner has been convicted falls outside the scope of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 16 of the Act and it is punishable with a minimum sentence of imprisonment for six months. But even Probation of Offenders Act may be applied in suitable cases. For this purpose, a report of the Probation Officer was called for and while the Probation Officer in his report confirmed that the petitioner is a heart patient has, however, not recommended his case for the application of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. This is on the ground there are two cases pending against the petitioner, one under the Act and other under the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner does not admit that there is any case pending, ogainst him under the Essential Comn issodities Act. Even if it is assumed that two cases are pending against him, it would not be proper for this Court to take notice of these cases before they are actually decided. The petitioner has stated that on account of his ill-health, he is no longer taking an active interest in his business and that he lias left it entirely to his son.
(4) Under these circumstances, I think this to be a fit case for invoking the provisions of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act thereforee, while confirming the conviction of the petitioner under section 7/16 of the Act, he is released on probation of good conduct subject to the condition that he should execute a bond for Rs. 1,000 to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year and in the meantime, to keep the peace and be of good behavior. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Delhi on 4th March, 1974, to execute the bond. Order accordingly,