JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six month's R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo further 3 months' R.I. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur, hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and have also examined the record of the case. A sample of buffalo milk was taken from the applicant by the Food Inspector on 21st July, 1977 at 9 A.M., which on analysis was found to be adulterated. The report of the Public Analyst was that the sample contained 5.4 per cent fat and 6.8 per cent non-fatty solids, It was thus deficient both in fat contents and in non-fatty solids. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, it is clear that there is abundant evidence on the record to indicate that the sample that was taken by the Food Inspector was that of buffalo milk. It was, therefore, rightly adjudged from that standard. The report of the Public Analyst correctly indicates the deficiency both in fat contents or in non-fatty solids. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the assessment of evidence by the subordinate courts to warrant interference. 4. Counsel for the applicant has argued that the benefit of First Offenders Probation Act may be given to the accused. This point was raised before the appellate court, who has made an observation that the applicant does not appear to be less than 23-24 years of age. This question was not raised, and decided before the trial court, which was the appropriate court, where the matter might have been investigated further, if necessary. Counsel for the applicant has now filed a certificate in the High Court in this revision. No opportunity has been given to the State Counsel to rebut it. Moreover, this is not the proper stage for filing additional evidence, and therefore, the question of age cannot be decided at this stage. 5. The incident had taken place after the enforcement of Act 34 of 1976. The minimum sentence provided in law thereafter was six months' R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Moreover, this is not the proper stage for filing additional evidence, and therefore, the question of age cannot be decided at this stage. 5. The incident had taken place after the enforcement of Act 34 of 1976. The minimum sentence provided in law thereafter was six months' R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. As such no relief can be granted even on the question of sentence. 6. There is no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. Fie shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment.