JUDGMENT J.P. Chaturvedi, J. - This is a revision against a Judgment and order of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur dismissing an appeal of the applicant against his conviction under section 16 read with section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence of six months RI and a lino of Rs. 1,000/- passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Muharajganj, District Gorakhpur. 2. The applicant was found selling buffalo-milk on 23rd day of January, 1976 at II a.m. near old power-house Siswan Bazar by Indersen Chauhan, Food Inspector. The latter purchased 600 mls. of buffalos milk from the applicant against payment of Re. 1/- and divided the same into three park and sent one of them to the Public Analyst who found it to be adulterated being 27 per cent less in fatty contents and 22 per cent in non-fatty solids than the prescribed standard. After obtaining usual sanction from the Chief Medic-Officer, a complaint was made against the applicant. 3. The applicant pleaded not guilty. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has moved an application that he may be granted benefit of section 4 of the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act, 1958. In the cases P.K. Tejani v. .M.R. Dange, 1974 FAC 74, Prem Ballabh and another v. Delhi Administration, 1976 (11) FAC 53 and Jai Narain. v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi, 1972 FAC 600, the Supreme Court has held that benefit of section 4 of the U. P. Offenders Probation Act should not be extended to those who have committed offence under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act, and as such even under the law as it stood before 1976 amendment, the benefit of section 4 cannot be given to the applicant. 5. It was next urged that the offence is covered by the first proviso to section 16(1) of the Act in as much as the article of food is adulterated within the meaning of sub-clause (1) of clause (1) of section 2, that is to say the quality of the milk is adulterated because it falls below the prescribed standard. In the circumstances, under the provisions of section 16, as it stood before the amendment of 1976, the applicant can be awarded less than six months R.I. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that the applicant is 69 years old and that it was his first conviction. In the circumstances, under the provisions of section 16, as it stood before the amendment of 1976, the applicant can be awarded less than six months R.I. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that the applicant is 69 years old and that it was his first conviction. Considering all these circumstances, therefore, the ends of justice will meet if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to three months R.I. and sentence of fine is reduced to Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine the applicant shall further undergo three months R.I. 7. The revision is, therefore, dismissed and the conviction of the applicant is affirmed. The applicant will however, undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and will pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo further R.I. for three months. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody to serve out his sentence.