Short Note : 1. The revision application was directed against an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, by which the accused, though found guilty under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was, instead of being sentenced to punishment, dealt with under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 2. The main grievance of the Municipal Corporation, Indore on whose complaint, the non-applicant was prosecuted and found guilty is that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act was applicable to the present case. It was also urged that in order to apply the provisions of this Act it was the age of the accused on the date of conviction that was material and not the age of the accused when the offence was committed. In the opinion of this Court, the view taken by the learned Magistrate was erroneous. From the provisions of section 6 of the Act, it is clear that the crucial date for consideration of the applicability of the provision of section 6 is the date when the accused is found guilty and not the date when the offence was committed by the accused. Ramji Missar vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1088 , relied on. 3. It was also urged on behalf of the non-applicant that since the order passed by the trial Court was an appealable order under sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act a revision application directly to this Court was not competent because of the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to sub-section (5) of section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. In this connection it would suffice to say that according to the aforesaid provisions, the appeal should be under the Criminal Procedure Code and not under any other law. If according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, old or new, an appeal is competent then proceeding by way of revision will be barred at the instance of the party which would have appealed. In the instant case, the appeal against the order passed by the learned Magistrate was not competent under any provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code but was provided only by sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act. In the instant case, the appeal against the order passed by the learned Magistrate was not competent under any provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code but was provided only by sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act. In these circumstances, the contention of the non-applicant that the present revision application was not competent cannot be accepted. 4. The questions as to whether the persons convicted for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act should or should not be dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act and should or should not be sentenced to any punishment has been considered by the Supreme Court. It has been held that offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are serious offences against the society and should not be dealt with leniently but there is no absolute bar against giving benefit under the said Act, if the Court is satisfied, considering the nature of the offence, the character of the accused and the other circumstances of the case benefit under the said Act could he given to the accused. However, all these matters are such which have to be initially considered by the trial Court, and as they have not been considered, it is necessary that the case should go back to the trial Court for reconsideration of this question. Ishardas vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1295 , Pyarali K. Tegani vs. M.R. Dange, AIR 1974 SC 228 , Mohammed Aziz vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 730 , Relied on. Case remanded. Revision partly allowed.