V. P. MATHUR. J. ( 1 ) -THIS criminal revision was taken up for final disposal after the revision of the list. No body appears on behalf of the revisionist. I have been taken through the judgment of the court below by the learned Counsel for State. ( 2 ) IN the grounds of revision, one of the points taken up is that on the date when this occurrence took place and the sample was taken, the applicant-revisionist was only 16 years of age and, therefore, this being the first offence committed by him, he should have been granted the benefit of First Offenderst Probation Act. In view of Section 20-AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, this point has been dealt with by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in para-12 of his judgment dated 30. 10. 1984. His view is that the relevant date for consideration of age in order to grant benefit of First Offenderst Probation Act, would be the date of conviction and not date of the occurrence. This is a sound legal conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. The matter stands concluded by a number of cases. Reference may be made to the case of Nagar Swasthya Adnikai v. Nem Chand, Shishupal v. State, Nafis v. State. ( 3 ) IT appears that the defence witness Ishhaq made a statement that the age of the appellant- revisionist on 20. 2. 84, when Ishhaq was examined in Court, he was of about 20-22 years. In his statement under sec. 313 Cr. P. C. recorded on 11. 1. 82 the revisionist disclosed his age as 22 years. Therefore, on 30. 10. 1984 when the order of conviction was passed, he was much more than 22 years of age. Hence Section 20-AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act would not be applicable to this case. ( 4 ) IN the passing I may also point out another case Yaduraj Singh and others v. State of U. P. , in which three Honble Judges of the Supreme Court have also taken the view that merely because the accused disclosed his age in his statement under section 313, Cr. ( 4 ) IN the passing I may also point out another case Yaduraj Singh and others v. State of U. P. , in which three Honble Judges of the Supreme Court have also taken the view that merely because the accused disclosed his age in his statement under section 313, Cr. P. C. that will not be considered to be of any special significance and on its basis in the absence of a proper plea under the provisions of the First Offenders Probation Act, that benefit can not be extended. ( 5 ) AS regards the other points taken in the grounds of revision, the plea of non compliance of the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act has been taken, but that has already been negatived by the learned Sessions Judge and there is nothing on the record to show hat there was any noncompliance of this provision of the law. There is no other point involved. ( 6 ) THE revision is, therefore, dismissed in toto. The order dated 19. 11. 1984 granting bail to the applicant and staying the realization of the fine shall stand vacated. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Court below at once, before whom the applicant-revisionist shall surrender. He shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence and proceedings for the realisation of fine shall also be started. .