JUDGMENT R.B. Lal, J. - This revision has been filed by Sheesh Pal who was convicted for an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. Sri K.D. Tyagi, Food Inspector Garh Mukteshwar found the present applicant selling she-buffalo milk at the Garh Mukteshwar Chopla in the evening of 31-12-1976. The Food Inspector took a sample of this milk for analysis after observing the rules. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was deficient in fat by 32 per cent and in non-fatty solids by 26 per cent. The Chief Medical Officer accorded sanction and then the present applicant was prosecuted. He was convicted as aforesaid by the Magistrate. An appeal filed by the applicant was also unsuccessful. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has not made any submission on the merits of the case. He has prayed for a reduction in the sentence. 4. The learned counsel has urged that on 19-2-1979 when the statement of the applicant was recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C., the applicant was only nineteen years of age and, therefore, on the date of occurrence he was below 17 years of age. The learned counsel has referred to section 20-AA of the Act and prayed for giving benefit of the provisions of the First offenders' Probation Act to the applicant. According to him the age on the date of the commission of the offence is to be taken into consideration for purposes of section 20AA. I have carefully gone through this section. The wordings of this section are clear and go to indicate that the age of the accused on the date of conviction is to be seen. Since on the date of conviction the applicant was admittedly above 18 years of age, section 20-AA could have no application to his case. 5. The learned counsel has next urged that the case of the applicant is covered by clause (i) of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act. He has urged that it was a case of 'adulteration' within the meaning of sub-clause (m) of clause (i-a) of section 2 of the Act. 5. The learned counsel has next urged that the case of the applicant is covered by clause (i) of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act. He has urged that it was a case of 'adulteration' within the meaning of sub-clause (m) of clause (i-a) of section 2 of the Act. Since the applicant was about 17 years of the age at the time of the commission of the offence, he may be awarded the minimum sentence of imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/- only. I think that this contention of the learned counsel has considerable force. There is nothing in the report of the Public Analyst to indicate that the case fell under sub-clause (c) or (d) or (e) of clause(i-a)a of section 2 of the Act. Though the deficiency was quite substantial, having regard to the age of the applicant, I am inclined to award the minimum sentence as aforesaid. 6. In the result, the revision succeeds#in part. While maintaining the conviction of the applicant Sheeshpal for an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, I reduce his sentence to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/- only. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The applicant shall surrender to the lower court to serve out the substantative sentence of imprisonment. He is allowed three months' time to pay up the fine, if not already paid. In case the full fine imposed by the lower court has been paid, the excess amount shall be refunded to the applicant.