JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Raja has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 15-5-79, passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, dismissing his appeal and confirming his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but reducing the sentence to six months R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of its payment to one months further R.I. The trial Court had awarded a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of its payment to six months further rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 31-7-1977 the Food Inspector Surendra Singh visited the canteen at Roadways Station, Rudrapur where the revisionist was selling cooked rice of yellow colour. He suspected it to contain prohibited colour and purchased one and a half kilograms of rice on payment of price in the manner prescribed. It was kept in three phials one of which was sent to the Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst reported that the sample contained prohibited metanil yellow coal tar dye which is punishable under the Act. On receipt of this report and on obtaining permission of the Medical Officer of Health a complaint was filed. 3. The revisionist gave out that he was only a servant of the canteen and the Food Inspector did not pay the price of the rice purchased by him. He also gave out that the rice was cooked for the servants of the canteen and not for sale. 4. The learned trial Court believed the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the revisionist as aforesaid. The learned lower Revisional Court also endorsed the findings but reduced the sentence. So far as the taking of sample of cooked rice from the canteen of the revisionist, and that it contained metanil yellow coal tar dye are concerned, there is no controversy. The permission to prosecute accorded in this case also does not suffer from any infirmity. The only point that has been urged before me is that the revisionist was about 16 years of age at the time the sample was collected and should be extended the benefit of the First Offenders Probation Act by virtue of Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The only point that has been urged before me is that the revisionist was about 16 years of age at the time the sample was collected and should be extended the benefit of the First Offenders Probation Act by virtue of Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. I have given my anxious consideration to the same and I am reluctant to extend the same for a number of reasons. In the first place minimum sentence is prescribed for cases in which prohibited coal tar dye is mixed. Therefore, it will not be open to the Court to reduce the sentence, secondly there are several pronouncements of the Supreme Court to the effect that in such cases appropriate sentence should be given and the benefit of First Offenders Probation Act should not be extended. In Kisan Trimbak Kothule v. State of Maharashtra 1976 (II) FAC 188, it has been held that : "Social mission of food laws should inform the interpretative process so that the legal blow may fall on every adulterator. Any narrow and pedantic literal and lexical construction likely to leave loopholes for this dangerous criminal tribe to speak out of the meshes of the law should be discouraged. The new criminal jurisprudence must depart from the old canons, which make indulgent presumptions and favoured constructions benefiting accused persons and defeating criminal statutes calculated to protect the public health and the nations wealth." Again, in Prem Ballabh and another v. State (Delhi Administration) 1976 (II) FAC 53 it has been held that : "Imperative of social defence must discourage the applicability of the probation principle. No chance can be taken by a society with a mans anti-social activity, in the guise of a respectable trade, jeopardise health and well-being of numerous innocent consumers. The adulteration is a social risk. It might be dangerous to leave him free to carry on his nefarious activity by applying the probation principle." 5. In view of the aforesaid view of the Supreme Court it is not possible to extend the benefit of the First Offenders Probation Act to the applicant even if he was about 17 years of age at the time of commission of the offence. The learned lower revisional Court has already awarded the minimum sentence prescribed for such offence and there is no scope for further reduction. 6. The revision application is accordingly dismissed. The learned lower revisional Court has already awarded the minimum sentence prescribed for such offence and there is no scope for further reduction. 6. The revision application is accordingly dismissed. The revisionist is on bail and will surrender forthwith or be taken into custody to serve out his sentence. The stay order is vacated.