JUDGMENT The revision petitioner has been concurrently found guilty under section 7 (i) read with section 2 (ia) (a) and section 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/with default sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment. The revision petitioner is a milk vendor. PW 1, the Food Inspector, Datia on 3rd July, 1985 purchased a sample of Cow's milk from the revision petitioner. After observing the requisite legal formalities, he duly sent one part of the sample to the public Analyst for analysis. The public Analyst reported that the sample contained 3.5 per cent of milk fat and 5.8 percent of milk solids not fat. The Food Inspector after investigation filed a complaint against the revision petitioner and subsequent legal formalities were also followed. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. The prosecution examined the Food Inspector and marked the relevant documents. The two Courts below have accepted the prosecution evidence in proof of the offence charged. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the two Courts below should have invoked the first proviso of section 16 of the Act and awarded the lesser sentence on the petitioner. The revision petitioner was 21 years at the time of occurrence. He has given up the profession of milk vending. There is non-conformity regarding only one of the standards prescribed. Having regard to these circumstances and the absured time, I am inclined to hold that proviso to section 16 (1) of the Act can be invoked in this case. In the result, I reduce the sentence to three months and fine of Rs. 1,000/with default sentence of two months simple imprisonment. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of.