JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. -Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Both the courts below have recorded a finding of fact to the effect that Besan was recovered from the applicants shop and that the applicant was keeping it for being used while preparing sweet-meat. This being finding of fact should not be interfered with in revision. 3. It was urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that since that Besan was not being sold as Besan even according to the finding of the two courts below, the applicant could not be held guilty of the offence under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The argument fails to impress me. There have been cases in which at a tea shop sample of sugar of milk was taken and, on being found adulterated, the accused was convicted of the offence under section 7 read with section 16. The same analogy can apply here as well. 4. Reference has also been made to a circular dated 7th of June, 1977 issued by the Central Government which has been cited in the case of Satya Prakash v. State, 1980 Alld. Cri. C. 138. Learned counsel urged that, according to this circular, nominal mixture of Kesari should be ignored. According to the earned counsel, due importance has not been given to this circular by the courts below. In my opinion this argument of the learned counsel is wholly The circular makes, a pointed reference to Item A. 18.06 of Appendix B of the Act. A perusal of that Item would show that it applies to food-grains. While prescribing the standard for the food-grain, it was, inter alia, said in this Item that foreign matter including chaff straw, weed seeds inedible grain, oil seeds and other seeds not exceeding 3% by weight can be excluded. There was no specific reference of Kesari Dal. Consequently, this circular merely clarified that foreign matter to be taken into account will include Kesari Dal as well if its mixture does not exceed 3%. So far as Besan is concerned, its standard is prescribed by Item A. 18.04 which explicitly states that it shall not contain any other foreign matter. The direction contained in the circular referred to by the learned counsel can, therefore, obviously not apply to Besan. So far as Besan is concerned, its standard is prescribed by Item A. 18.04 which explicitly states that it shall not contain any other foreign matter. The direction contained in the circular referred to by the learned counsel can, therefore, obviously not apply to Besan. For purposes of holding the applicant guilty for selling adulterated Besan, it was sufficient for the courts below to find that the sample of Besan that was taken possession of from his shop did not conform to the standard prescribed in Item A. 18.04 of Appendix B. 5. It was also urged by the learned counsel that no chemical analysis took place. The Sessions Judge has, however, remarked that chemical as well as microscopic examination was made. The contention is, therefore, rejected. 6. Learned counsel urged that some leniency be shown to the applicant in the matter of sentence on the ground that the offence is technical and the applicant is not a previous convict. The fact, however, remains that the standard prescribed in Schedule B absolutely prohibits mixing any foreign ingredient in the matter of Besan. The offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are against society and have to be viewed seriously. That apart, do not think this offence falls under any of the clauses of the first proviso to section 16. In this view of the matter it is not possible to take a lenient view on the of sentence. 7. Learned counsel also urged that the benefit of the First Offenders Probation Act may be extended to the applicant. In my opinion it is not a proper exercise of discretion to extend the benefit of the First Offenders Probation Act in cases of food adulteration. 8. The revision is, therefore, dismissed.