JUDGMENT H.N. Kapoor, J. - The applicant Akhtar Ali has been convicted under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six month's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The order was confirmed in Cr. appeal No. 153 of 1975 by the Fifth Adi. District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur by his order dated 14-1-1976. 2. The prosecution case is that the applicant was found selling and exhibiting for sale cow's milk on 22-9-1973 at about 6-45 a.m. on Nawabganj Road, near Jwala Nagar within the limits of the Municipal Board Saharanpur when he was checked by the Food Inspector. The Food Inspector purchased the sample of milk from him and sealed the same in bottles. On analysis, it was found that it was deficient in fat contents by about 3 percent and in non-fatty solid contents by about 2.4 percent. The applicant was duly prosecuted. The defence of applicant was that he did not deal in milk and that he had not pul his signatures on the papers produced by the prosecution. The trial Court found the prosecution case proved and convicted and sentenced applicant as stated above. The order was confirmed in appeal. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision. It was admitted on the question of sentence only. The applicant has filed on affidavit to the effect that he is not a previous convict and is entitled to be given the benefit of the U.P. First Offenders' Probation Act. He gave his age as 20 years. In his statement under section 342 Cr. P.C. recorded on 12-2-1975 he had given his age as 21 years. It cannot, therefore, be said that he was below 18 years at the time of the occurrence or at the time when the order was passed by the trial court. Now in view of the amendment made by Act No. XXXIV of 1976, it is not possible to allow benefit of the U.P. First Offenders' Probation Act to a person convicted of such offences unless he was below 18 years, of age. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, argued that there are circumstances showing that a lenient view should be taken in this case. The applicant is not a regular milk vendor. He is a cultivator. There was no evidence that the applicant was actually selling milk to other persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, argued that there are circumstances showing that a lenient view should be taken in this case. The applicant is not a regular milk vendor. He is a cultivator. There was no evidence that the applicant was actually selling milk to other persons. All that can be said is that he had sold the milk to the Food Inspector only. It may be that he was only a casual vendor of milk. Fie is not likely to repeat the offence in future. The deficiency in fat contents was negligible. Of course, there was some deficiency in non-fatty solid contents. The applicant is a young man of 20 or 21 years. The occurrence took place in September, 1973. He has already undergone imprisonment for a few days. In my opinion, no useful purpose would be served by sending him to jail again. In my opinion, ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence is reduced considerably. 5. In the result the revision is allowed to this extent that the conviction of the applicant is maintained but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the sentence already undergone and the sentence of fine is reduced to Rs. 300/-(three hundred) from Rs. 1,000/-. He is allowed two months time to deposit the fine. He is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged after the fine has been deposited. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further R.I. for two months. 6. A copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the applicant on payment of usual charges within a week.