JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - The applicant Wali Mohammad has been convicted under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default further R.L for 1 months. 2. The prosecution case was that on 25-4-1978 at about 10 A.M. the applicant was found having in possession for sale adulterated curd in village Ajitpur in district Rampur. A sample of the curd taken by the Food Inspector was found by the Public Analyst per his report dated 30-5-1978 to contain only 1.50 per cent fat and 5.82 per cent non-fatty solids which substantially falls short of even the prescribed standard for goat milk curd which is the lowest of all kinds of milk, that standard being 3 per cent fat contents and 9 per cent non-fatty solids. The applicant's case was that he did not have any curd for sale and was carrying only some Muttha or butter milk to a relation for preparation of Karhi on the occasion of a marriage feast. The applicant even examined a witness in support of this plea. Both the courts below have rejected this plea and held on the evidence of the Food Inspector that the applicant was indeed having curd for sale in his possession. There is no infirmity in this finding that can justify interference in revision. 3. No other legal defect in the conviction could be pointed out. The conviction must, therefore, stand. 4. Learned counsel then prayed for leniency and reduction of sentence pointing out that the applicant's age in his statement dated 17-11-1979 was recorded to be only 20 years. This would make the age on 25-4-1978, the date of the offence, above 18 years. Therefore, in view of Section 20(AA) of the Act the benefit of the First Offenders Act cannot be extended to him. However the case falls under the proviso (i) to Section 16(1) of the Act and instead of the usual minimum of 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- a minimum sentence of 3 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- can be imposed for special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment. Since the offence relates to a village and pertains to curd I think the benefit of this proviso should be extended to the applicant in view of his young age. 5. 1000/- a minimum sentence of 3 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- can be imposed for special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment. Since the offence relates to a village and pertains to curd I think the benefit of this proviso should be extended to the applicant in view of his young age. 5. The revision is, therefore, partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is confirmed but his sentence of six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- is reduced to three months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default further R.I. for 1 months'. The applicant is on bail in pursuance of this Court's order dated 6-6-1980 and shall be taken into custody at the earliest to serve out his sentence.