JUDGMENT H.N. Kapoor, J. - Applicant Kanhaya Lal has been convicted under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The order was confirmed by the Addl. Sessions Judge of Gyanpur in Cr. Appeal No. 9 of 1977 by his order dated the 1st of September, 1977. 2. The prosecution case is that the applicant was found selling milk on 21.12.1973 at about 9 a.m. near a canteen of sugar-mill Aurai police station Aurai, District Varanasi when the Food Inspector checked him and purchased the sample from him. That sample was found to be deficient in fat contents by about 30 per cent and in non-fatty solids by about 30 per cent. The applicant was duly prosecuted. He denied the prosecution allegations and even denied sale. Both the lower courts found the prosecution case proved against the applicant and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision. It was admitted on the question of sentence and has been pressed on the question of sentence only. 3. An affidavit was filed to the effect that the applicant is entitled to be given the benefit of the U.P. First Offenders Probation Act. According to the applicant, he was said about 14 years at the time of the occurrence. A report was called for from the probation officer. He has made enquiries. His report shows that the present age of the applicant is 22 years. The applicant is no more a milk seller. He has taken a job and earning about Rs. 300/- per month. He has read upto 5th class. He has good antecedents. He has now been married. The Probation Officer has recommended that he should be given the benefit of the U.P. First Offender's Probation Act. The lower appellate Court had rejected the prayer for giving the benefit of this Act relying on the case of Prem Balabh v. State, AIR 1977 S.C. 26. I have examined that authority. No doubt, it has been held in that case that benefit of the U.P. First Offender's Probation Act should not be normally allowed to adulterators but reference was made to an earlier authority in which it was clearly held that resort to the provisions of this Act should not be lightly taken in case of offenders above 21 years of age. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been recently amended providing that benefit should not be given to persons above of 18 years of age. That amendment is not applicable to the present case as the occurrence took place in 1973. It does not appear even from the report of the probation officer that the applicant was only aged below 18 years at the time of the occurrence. In view of the report of the probation officer, in my opinion, it is a fit case in which that benefit should be allowed to the applicant. In the result the revision is partly allowed to this extent that the conviction of the applicant is maintained but instead of undergoing the sentence, he shall be released on probation of good conduct on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 2,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. During this period, he shall have to appear and receive the sentence whenever called upon to do so. The applicant is allowed two months time to furnish the necessary bonds. In default, he shall have to undergo imprisonment and pay the tine as ordered by the lower Court. He is on bail. His bail bonds shall automatically stand discharged after he has furnished the necessary bonds. In case the furnishes, bonds, the fine too shall not be realised from him.