Pritam Singh Safeer, J.
1. This petition preferred under Sections 435/439 of the Criminal Procedure Code is moved against the order dated the 20th of January, 1971. Respondent Anand Sarup had been convicted by the trial Court under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. A complaint had been filed against him alleging that he was found on the 26th of February 1970 selling Dal Bhiji (coloured) and 600 grams of it were purchased by the Food Inspector. On analysis it was found that the Dal Bhiji which was being sold by the respondent was adulterated due to the presence of artificial coal tar dye.
2. The respondent and his counsel did not challenge the conviction and submitted before the Addl. Sessions Judge that the respondent be given the benefit of the provision contained in the Probation of Offenders Act. For the reasons stated by him in his order made on the 20th of January, 1971 the Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent should be given a chance to improve himself and should not be sent to jail. He was directed to be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of 2 years. It was provided that the respondent was to keep peace and was to be of good conduct during that period.
3. It is the admitted case between the parties before me that the respondent complied with the said order and furnished the requisite bond. The period of 2 years is now over. There can be no reversal of the situation. The petition is infructuous. It may, however, be observed that in Jai Narain v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi : 1973CriLJ49 while disposing of Crl. Appeal No. 172 of 1969, the Supreme Court observed that the benefit of the provisions contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, should not be lightly given and it should be kept in view that Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides for a minimum sentence of imprisonment for not less than 6 months for the offence of selling adulterated food. The imperative nature of Section 16 was not the only element and the Supreme Court was dealing precisely with a case where coal tar dye had been used in preparation of Patisa which is a sweetened eatable commodity. The Supreme Court took the view that the sale of such an article of food which had been adulterated was an anti-social activity, deleterious to the health of those who were to consume the article of food. The eradication of evil was the principal aim of the Act. Where the evil was to be found pernicious coloring matter obviously used to attract customers, causing adulteration that was to be taken into consideration and the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act was not to be given.
4. In this case the compliance with the impugned order is already over. There is no occasion for me to interfere with the same.
5. Taking into consideration this peculiar aspect, the petition is dismissed.