JUDGMENT D.P.S. Chauhan, J. - This revision application is by Mohd. Afzal against the order or dismissal of his appeal No. 85 of 1986. Against his conviction under section 7/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 brevity (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the sentence of 6 months' R I. together with a line of Rs. 1000/-. 2. The relevant facts leading to the present case are that on 30th August, 1981 at about 8 a.m , the Food inspector, Nagarpalika Sambhal, finding the applicant taking away cow milk for sale in Mohallah Their took the Sample of the same on payment and also gave notice in form 6. The milk was divided into three parts and one of the phials was sent to the public Analyst whose report was received and the milk was found to be deficient in non fatty solids by 11 per cent. After obtaining the sanction and observance of all the formalities a complaint was filed. The applicant denied the purchase of the milk and all the allegations and also showed hit ignorance about the adulteration in the milk and pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him. 3. Since the revision is admitted only on the question of sentence, it is not necessary to enter into the merits of the matter. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the present case, the applicant is below the age of 18 years on the date of commission of the offence and he is entitled for being released on probation of good conduct in view of the provisions of section 20AA of the Act. The main question for consideration is as to whether which would be the relevant date for the purpose of section 20AA of the Act. Whether it should be the date of the Commission of the offence which in the present case is 30th August, 1981, or it would be the date of the conviction of the applicant which in the present case is 7.5.1986. In support of his contention learned counsel for the applicant has relied on a case of Mastram v. State, 1982 (19) ACC 155. In support of his contention learned counsel for the applicant has relied on a case of Mastram v. State, 1982 (19) ACC 155. This case is not attracted as in this case, there was no such controversy for consideration as to which would be the relevant date for the purpose of section 20AA of the Act. Apart from it, in that case, the applicant's age at the time of commission of the offence was below 16 years and at the time of recording of his statement in the Court was 17 years. In this case no law was laid down on the point as to which would be the relevant point of time for consideration of age. However, this question is no-longer res integra. In Nawal Singh v. State of U.P., 1985 (2) FAC 51 this Court held : "However, before benefit of the said section 20AA is available to any person, convicted of an offence under prevention of Food Adulteration Act, is should be under 18 years of age on the date of the conviction and not on the date of the offence. The same view was expressed in a decision, Sheesh Pal v. State, 1981 (1) FAJ 248. It was held therein that "wordings of the said 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 appellant was admittedly above 18 years of age, section 20AA could have no application in his case." Similar view as taken in another case Nafees v. State and another, 1983 FAJ 248 similar view was expressed in another case Suresh Pal v. State, 1981 (1) FAC 417 where it is held that the wordings of the said section are clear and go to indicate that the age of the accused on the date of conviction is to be seen. 6. It is settled view that for the purpose of section 20AA of the Act, the relevant date for the purpose of ascertaining the age of the accused is the date of conviction. In the present case the applicant on the date of conviction was about 21 years of age. 7. Further the provisions of probation of offenders Act 1958 (Act No. 20 of 1958) have come into force in the district of Moradabad w.e.f. May, 1 1981. 8. In the present case the applicant on the date of conviction was about 21 years of age. 7. Further the provisions of probation of offenders Act 1958 (Act No. 20 of 1958) have come into force in the district of Moradabad w.e.f. May, 1 1981. 8. In view of the above fact, the applicant is not entitled for being released on probation of good conduct under the provisions of First Offenders Probation Act, 1958 as on the date of conviction he w as not below the age of 18 years. His age was little less than 21 years. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant thereafter submitted that the sentence as imposed on the applicant may be reduced having regard to the fact that the occurrence is as old as 30th August, 1981 and since then the case is pending in one court or the other. The applicant has already undergone about 1 week imprisonment. He further submits that in the present case the fat contents were found to be 5 9. per cent and non-fatty contents were found to be 7.6 per cent and this deficiency is not harmful. 10. I consider it to be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence as imposed on the applicant after having in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case from 6 months to 3 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 500/-. In case the fine has been deposited excess, the same shall be refunded to the applicant. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged. 11. With the above modification in sentence, the revision application is dismissed.