JUDGMENT R.B. Lal, J. - This revision has been filed by Om Prakash who was i 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/- by the magistrate and whose conviction and sentence was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahajahanpur. 2. On June 2, 1976 at about 10 A.M. Food Inspector J.P. Misra ; P.W. 1 found the applicant carrying two or three drums of milk on his cycle j in Mohalla Azizganj. He purchased a sample of milk for analysis purpose * according to rules and paid its price. The Public Analyst in his report dated June 28, 1976, said that the milk was analysed by the standard prescribed for buffalo milk and was found deficient in fat contents by 3% and in non-fatty solids content by 24%. The applicant was prosecuted. His case was that he was taking some milk for a patient. The milk was of cow and not I meant for sale. He did not adduce any evidence in defence. The magistrate : did not accept the defence and accepted the prosecution case and convicted I and sentenced the applicant. An appeal to the Sessions Judge was also unsuccessful. The father of the applicant had filed an affidavit before the Sessions Judge saying that the applicant was below 18 years of age. This was done in the hope of claiming benefit of probation provisions but this affidavit I was not accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge. 3. Feeling aggrieved the applicant has filed this revision. 4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there was no compliance with the requirement of rule 20 inasmuch as no preservative was added to the sample of milk. The Food Inspector did not say about the addition of preservative in his statement and the magistrate did not give any finding on this point. A perusal of the record shows that the statement of the Food Inspector J.P. Misra was recorded on sevaral dates. In his statement dated 27th June, 1980 he actually said that 18 drops of formalin preservative were added to each bottle. Thus there was full compliance with rule 20; hence this contention of the learned counsel has no force. 5. A perusal of the record shows that the statement of the Food Inspector J.P. Misra was recorded on sevaral dates. In his statement dated 27th June, 1980 he actually said that 18 drops of formalin preservative were added to each bottle. Thus there was full compliance with rule 20; hence this contention of the learned counsel has no force. 5. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the milk was of cow and not of she-buffalo. This case was set up by the applicant and the two courts below did not record a finding on this important question. I have f gone through the judgment of the lower court. It is true that it was not mentioned in the judgment of the magistrate in so many words that the milk k of which the sample was taken was buffalo. But from his judgment it is clear that he had come to this finding and had not believed the case of the applicant that the milk was of cow. The prosecution had led evidence to prove that the milk of which the sample was taken was of buffalo and that evidence was believed. Hence the judgment of the trial court does not suffer from want of a clear finding on this point. The Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the findings of the trial court. It appears that this point was not raised before the appellate court. It seems that before the lower appellate court the stress was on the fact that the applicant was below 18 years of age. Hence no benefit can accrue to the applicant on account of absence of any specific finding on this point. 6. The last contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the affidavit of Babu Ram, father of the applicant, regarding the age of the applicant was wrongly rejected. There was no counter-affidavit and, therefore, the affidavit of the father should have been accepted. That affidavit showed that the applicant was born in October, 1958 and on the date of occurrence i.e. 2-6-1976 was below 18 years of age. I have gone through the appellate courts judgment with regard to this affidavit and, in my opinion, the affidavit was rightly rejected. Babu Ram, father of the applicant was an illiterate person and still he said that his son was born in October, 1958. I have gone through the appellate courts judgment with regard to this affidavit and, in my opinion, the affidavit was rightly rejected. Babu Ram, father of the applicant was an illiterate person and still he said that his son was born in October, 1958. He could not possibly have remembered the year and month of the birth of his son. No documentary evidence in support of the affidavit was produced. The statement of the applicant was recorded by the trial court on two dates i.e. on 15-7-78 and 26-9-80. At the time of the first statement the applicant gave out his age as 21 years and at the time of the second statement as 24 years. This does not fit in with his birth in October, 1958. An affidavit may normally be accepted in the absence of the counter-affidavit. However, this is not an inflexible rule and if other circumstances warrant, an affidavit may be rejected even, when there is no counter-affidavit. In the instant case there were circumstances before the appellate court not to place reliance on the affidavit of Babu Ram which was a self serving document. 7. Further, it may be pointed out that a reading of section 20-AA of the Act indicates that the age of the accused on the date of conviction is to be taken into consideration in connection with the question of extending benefit of probation provisions to him. On 27-9-80, the applicant was about 23 or 24 years old. 8. The learned counsel for the applicant has next urged that the applicant may be allowed benefit of clause (i) of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 16 of the Act, as the case fell within the ambit of sub-clause (m) of clause (i-a) of section 2 of the Act. I think that this contention of the learned counsel deserves serious consideration in view of the quantity of deficiency found by the public analyst. 9. In view of the above, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of Om Prakash applicant for an offence under section 7/16 of the Act is maintained, but his sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/- only. The applicant shall surrender to the magistrate to serve out the sentence if he has not already served it out. The conviction of Om Prakash applicant for an offence under section 7/16 of the Act is maintained, but his sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/- only. The applicant shall surrender to the magistrate to serve out the sentence if he has not already served it out. He is allowed three months time to pay up the fine. In case he has already deposited the fine imposed by the magistrate, the excess amount shall be refunded to him.