JUDGMENT Mahavir Singh, J. 1. THIS is a revision by Rameshwar alias Ramal against the order dismissing his appeal against his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and confirming the sentence of six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed by the trial court. 2. THE prosecution case was that Food Inspector Sri H. S. Singh found the applicant selling buffalo milk in village Unche Gaon on 11-10-74. He took sample from him on payment of Rs. 00.75 P. its price and after dividing into there parts, one part was sent to the public analyst. On report he found the sample defficient in fat content by about 15 percent and deficient in non fatty solids content by about 56%. The applicant denied to have sold the milk. He alleged that a newly born baby was entrusted to him by the village people for bringing up. He was advised by the doctor to give him diluted milk. One Mathura Singh (PW 2), who was cited by the Food Inspector, had taken milk from him but he did not charge any money from him. He examined some witnesses in his defence. 3. THE trial court as well as the appellate court believed the prosecution case and rejected the defence contention altogether and it was found that the applicant selling milk. The milk being adulterated the applicant was accordingly convicted as mentioned above. 4. IN revision besides taking other usual pleas, a legal point was also raised that the applicant was deprived of his right given to him by law under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to get the sample analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory inasmuch as he received the notice of the case on 10-9-76 after eleven months of the sample being taken and then it was useless to get the sample analysed. In support of his plea the applicant has relied upon Net Ram v. State, 1966 ALJ 916. In support of his plea the applicant has relied upon Net Ram v. State, 1966 ALJ 916. In this case it was held that as the notice for the prosecution was received by the accused after more than four months of the date of taking the sample which was the normal period of the article being kept without being decomposed, the applicant was deprived of the right given to him by Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for getting the article analsyed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. The case relied upon by the applicant has however been overruled in the Nagar Mahapalika, Ghaziabad v. Gopal, 1974 CrLJ 128 . It was held in that case following the Supreme Court view in Babu Lal Hargovind Das v. State, AIR 1971 SC 1277 that where a right to send a sample to Director of Central Food Laboratory is not claimed in trial court but is claimed for the first time in the appellate court, that court should not even consider that plea while deciding the case. Admittedly the applicant had not taken this plea in the trial court. He had actually not taken this plea even at the appellate stage. It is for the first time that he has taken this plea in this Court. So he cannot be allowed to raise this point here. 5. FURTHER from the defence taken by him, this plea does not arise at all. He admitted that he had the diluted milk with him and sample was taken by Mathura Singh (PW 2) from that milk. It implied that he admits that it was an adulterated food. So he could not have got any other report from the Director of Central Food Laboratory, even if he got an opportunity to send the same for analysis. Of he course, gave some explanation to keeping the same but that was not believed. This plea taken by the applicant thus has no force. 6. THE next question is whether the defence of the applicant was genuine. In revision the finding of fact given by the courts below specially when it is a concurrent finding of fact of both the trial as well as the appellate court, is normally not interfered with. This plea taken by the applicant thus has no force. 6. THE next question is whether the defence of the applicant was genuine. In revision the finding of fact given by the courts below specially when it is a concurrent finding of fact of both the trial as well as the appellate court, is normally not interfered with. A revisional court should not re-appraise the evidence unless there are certain material infirmities in the appreciation of the evidence, which, call for interference in the interest of justice. The question was simply of belief or disbelief of the witnesses form both the sides. There is (?) ignoring of any cardinal principle of appreciation of evidence. Hence no interference in the finding of fact is called for. The trial court had passed minimum sentences prescribed by law. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that either the sentence may be reduced considering the age of the applicant or he may be given benefit of the U.P. First Offenders' Probation Act. 7. SO far as the first plea is concerned vide Amendment Act No. 34 of 1976, even the reduction in the sentence cannot be less than three months' R.I. and Rs. 500/- as fine. So the prayer of the applicant that considering his age he may not be sent to jail cannot be granted at all. SO there is no reason to reduce the sentence of imprisonment. 8. AS regards giving the benefit of the First Offenders' Probation Act, though technically it is available to a person committing this offence as well, as held in Badan Singh v. State of U.P. 1976 AWC 298 but as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Prem Ballabh v. State, 1976 FAJ 390 the offence of food adulteration being menace to public health and the society not being inclined to deal with such persons leniently, benefit of this Act should not be lightly given to. The Legislature has also amended the Act and added a new section as Section 20-AA to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act providing that a person above eighteen years of age shall not be given benefit of the First Offenders' Probation Act Hence it is not advisable to give benefit of this Act also to the applicant. In the result the revision fails and is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. In the result the revision fails and is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad will send compliance report within six weeks. Revision dismissed.