Pritam Singh Pattar, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by Gopi Ram son of. Bhanja Ram, resident of Abohar, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur, against the judgment dated Nov. 28, 1975 of the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby he maintained his conviction under section 16(1 )(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 954 but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine Rs. 1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The facts of the case are that on June 20, 1973, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer (Health) Ferozepur, along with Dr. P.K. Mittal and one Parma Nand raided the sweet-meat shop of Gopi Ram at Abohar and took sample of the churma (sweet-meat prepared of vesan, sugar and ghee). The'sample was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst analysed the same and gave his report Exh. P.D. to the effect that the sample was adulterated as it contained unpermitted orange acid coal-tar dye. A complaint was filed against the petitioner and he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fazilka, and was sentenced to 8 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay Rs. 1,000.00 as fine. On appeal his conviction was maintained by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, but the sentence was reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment. Thereafter he filed this revision petition which was admitted as regards sentence only. Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the age of the petitioner is 68 years and that the sentence awarded to him is excessive. He contends that he may be released on probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The request cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Narain Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1972 F.A.C. 600 . The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 845. In that case the offence was committed in the year 1965 and due to protracted criminal proceedings it was remarked that it would not be proper to send the accused to jail. It was directed that the appellant be bound down under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. . This decision is clearly distinguishable and does not apply to this case. However, taking the facts and circumstances of this case into consideration including the age of the petitioner and also the nature of the offence committed by him, his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to two months rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine and the imprisonment in default of payment of fine are maintained. Sentence reduced.;