JUDGMENT 1. THIS is a revision by Narauti against the dismissal of his appeal by the learned 1st, Additional Sessions Judge, Agra against his conviction under Section 7/16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and a sentence of R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default a further R.I. for six months. 2. THE prosecution case was that on 11-5-1972 the Food Inspector A. P. Dwivedi (PW 1) took a sample of cow's milk from the possession of the applicant at 10.45 a. m. within the limits of Nagar Mahapalika, Agra. After disclosing his identity and after usual formalities he gave the price of 660 mili liters of milk to the applicant and divided the same into three samples. On the report of the public analyst the milk was found deficient in non fatty solids by 38%. A complaint was filed against the applicant but the applicant denied the charge. He alleged that he was not selling the milk. He was having about 2 kilograms of milk and was taking it to one Puran Chand. He admitted that sample was taken from him by the Food Inspector but no price was given to him. The learned Magistrate held the prosecution to be correct and so accordingly convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above. 3. ON appeal the finding was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4. TWO points have been urged in revision before me. One is that the evidence on record was not such that the prosecution case should have been believed. It was said that only one independent witness was examined and his presence on the spot was also doubtful. In revision such findings of fact are however not open to interference unless there is manifest illegality in procedure or there is exclusion or admission of any material piece of evidence or so. Both the courts below held this witness to be present on the spot and as such it does not call for an interference. It is then contended that there was no legal evidence to hold that the sample of milk was adulterated. In order to appreciate the contention of parties, some facts may be mentioned. At first Public Analyst had submitted a report showing that the sample of milk was adulterated. Later applicant applied for a report from Director of Central Food Laboratory Calcutta. In order to appreciate the contention of parties, some facts may be mentioned. At first Public Analyst had submitted a report showing that the sample of milk was adulterated. Later applicant applied for a report from Director of Central Food Laboratory Calcutta. That also confirmed the report of Public Analyst. 5. THE contention of learned counsel of applicant is that the report of Director as received in court is not the original. It is only a copy of that report as original is said to be missing and as under Sec. 13 (5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act only a report signed by Director is admissible without further proof, no such presumption can be applied to a copy. Further as the report of Director supersedes that of Public Analyst, the latter is not admissible if the report of Director is not proved by prosecution. 6. THIS contention is not acceptable. Firstly it is not for the prosecution to prove the report of Director of Central Food Laboratory. Such a report was called at the instance of the applicant. The court's duty is only to help the applicant in getting the report. If the report was received was somehow such that presumption of Section 13 (5) did not apply to it, It is for him to apply to court to get that defect removed by asking for a second report or a duplicate one or by summoning the Director to prove the copy. If he does nothing, it is he who suffers. He was, however, not interested in removal of its defect as the report is not favourable to him. So he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own default. If the report was not got proved by him, report of Public Analyst remains valid. It can be superseded only on receipt of legally provable report of Director. Secondly it is also not acceptable that the copy of the report Ant by Director later can also not be regarded as proved in view of Section 13 (5) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned counsel of applicant in support of his contention relies upon Ratan Lal v. Municipal Council Jaipur, AIR 1967 Raj. 231 . Secondly it is also not acceptable that the copy of the report Ant by Director later can also not be regarded as proved in view of Section 13 (5) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned counsel of applicant in support of his contention relies upon Ratan Lal v. Municipal Council Jaipur, AIR 1967 Raj. 231 . It was held in that case that only the original report of the Director signed by him was admissible under sub-section (5) of Sec. 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the certified copy issued by him cannot take its place. I am in agreement with this view. But in that very case it was observed that if there was any duplicate certificate issued by the Director bearing his signature, that will serve the purpose and if this principle is applied here, the copy on record will also be legally admissible. 7. IN the present case the copy sent by the Director has been attested by him personally. He has signed it after the endorsement of attestation. So although it has not been mentioned as a duplicate copy, but for all practical purposes it is deemed to be a duplicate certificate issued by the Director and, therefore, it is admissible under Section 13 (9) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Thus the sample was rightly held to be an adulterated one. 8. LASTLY the learned counsel for the applicant contends that the sentence imposed upon the applicant is severe. He actually prays that the applicant being of 19 years of age should be given benefit of First Offender's Probation Act. However, according to Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, provision of First Offender's Probation Act has not been made applicable to an offence under this Act unless the offender is of less than 18 years of age. Learned counsel for the applicant then contends that in any case the sentence of one year is severe. The maximum sentence at the time when the conviction was made was only six months and, therefore, he should not be punished for more than that. This plea can be accepted. The applicant was only a young man of 19 years and therefore a little reduction in the sentence is called for. 9. ACCORDINGLY the revision is allowed in part. The maximum sentence at the time when the conviction was made was only six months and, therefore, he should not be punished for more than that. This plea can be accepted. The applicant was only a young man of 19 years and therefore a little reduction in the sentence is called for. 9. ACCORDINGLY the revision is allowed in part. While the conviction of the applicant is maintained, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to six months' R. I. but the sentence of fine is maintained. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Agra will send compliance report within six weeks. Revision partly allowed.