ORDER Mohd. Hamid Hussain, J. - Applicant Akbar has preferred this revision against his conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of imprisonment of one year R.I. and the fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default further R.I. for three months. 2. The brief facts are that on 7-2-1970 at about 10 A.M., the applicant was found in Bazar Kalan of Dhampur town, offering for sale buffalo milk. Sample of this milk was taken by the Food Inspector, Sri B.P. Sharma (P.W.1). The sample of milk was reported by the Public Analyst to be adulterated vide his report dated 28-3-1970 (Ex-6). On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, the applicant was prosecuted. On the evidence of the Food Inspector, Sri B.P. Sharma (P W 1), Deoki Nandan (P.W. 2) and Brij Mohan Sharma (P.W.3) the magistrate found the applicant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 14-5-1971 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant. 3. Sri D.N. Wali, learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted that in this revision on merits, he will not be able to assail the findings recorded by the courts below, but since the applicant is a young man, it will not be conducive for the betterment of the applicant to send him to jail for a petty offence of having been found selling adulterated milk. The learned counsel has also submitted that the applicant besides being young is a poor milk vendor and imposition of fine of Rs. 1,000/- will have untold hardship on the family of the applicant. 4. Sri Syed Shaukat Abidi, learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has contended that the applicant has to his credit a previous conviction for similar offence u/S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and he was let off by a fine of Rs. 50/- and since the applicant has been convicted again for similar offence, he does not deserve any leniency by reduction of the sentence. The fact that applicant had been previously convicted was not put to the applicant when his statement u/S. 342 Cr.P.C was recorded and no charge on that count was framed against him. 50/- and since the applicant has been convicted again for similar offence, he does not deserve any leniency by reduction of the sentence. The fact that applicant had been previously convicted was not put to the applicant when his statement u/S. 342 Cr.P.C was recorded and no charge on that count was framed against him. In view of this, the copy of the judgment of the previous conviction of the applicant in the instant case cannot legally be taken into consideration for purposes of consideration of sentence. In his statement the applicant has given his age as 20 years and his occupation as a labourer. The applicant has affixed his thumb impression on his statement. All this shows that the applicant is an illiterate young man and earns his livelihood by doing labour. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant is in an affluent circumstances. 5. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case and looking to the young age of the applicant, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and sentence of fine from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 20/-. In default of payment of the fine, as modified by this Court, the applicant shall undergo two months' R.I. 6. The revision is partly allowed.