JUDGMENT Lodge, J. - This Rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Malda to show cause why the conviction and sentence under r. 81 (4) of the Defence of India Rules passed upon the Petitioner should not be set aside. The material facts are not disputed. On October 29th, 1944, one Mahammad Altan, peon of the Drug Sub-Inspector of Malda, went to the dispensary of the Petitioner Ashutosh Chatterji to make a trial purchase of a small phial of Quino Haemogen. The Petitioner sold small phial of this medicine for Rs. 4-8. The peon stated that at first the Petitioner was unwilling to grant a cash memo, but on being pressed granted a cash memo showing the for Rs. 4-8. It was alleged that he sold in contravention of the provisions of the Drugs Control Order. In the Drugs Control Order it is provided that certain drugs set out in Schedule A to that Order shall be sold at prices not exceeding the prices mentioned in that Schedule. In the original schedule to the Drugs Control Order this medicine Quino Haemogen was not included. A subsequent Order, referred to as amendment No. 2 to the Drugs Control Order, was issued on May 19th, 1944, by Gazette Notification No. 475 D. M. (1)/44, dated May 19th, 1944, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary on May 19th, 1944. According to this amendment this particular medicine Quino Haemogen was to be sold at prices not exceeding Rs. 3-8 per small phial. A subsequent amendment was issued on August 19th, 1945, increasing the maximum price of this drug from Rs. 3-8 to Rs. 3-12 per bottle. The Petitioner was accused of selling in excess of the price mentioned in amendment No. 2 dated May 19th, 1944, though in fact amendment No. 4 was in force on the date of the offence. The reason for this was that amendment No. 4 had not reached the local authorities on the day when the offence was committed. The Petitioner denied all knowledge of amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 4. It was argued on his behalf that he was not guilty of any offence in so far as there had not been a proper publication of the amendments 2nd in so far as he was unaware that these amendments had been made. Both the Courts below rejected there pleas. It was argued on his behalf that he was not guilty of any offence in so far as there had not been a proper publication of the amendments 2nd in so far as he was unaware that these amendments had been made. Both the Courts below rejected there pleas. They found the Petitioner guilty and sentenced him under r. 81 (4) of the Defence of India Rules to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 only and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Mr. Mukherjee for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to certain letters which were issued by the Under-Secretary to the Government of India and by the Commissioner of Excise. In letter No. 479 D. M. (31)/44 dated May 18th, 1944, the Under-Secretary to the Government of India addressed Provincial Governments and Chief Commissioners, and informed them that amendment No. 2 was being issued in an Extra-ordinary issue of the Gazette of India on or about Friday, May 19th, 1944 and further informed them that copies of the schedules would be sent to the Local Governments thus giving the Local Government sufficient time to distribute the schedules and it was further observed that all price decreases would have effect only one month after the date of the Gazette Notification, but the price increases would have effect from the date of the Notification. This letter and other letters referred to clearly indicate that it was the desire of the Government of India that copies of the schedules should be circulated to retailers. 2. It has been contended first that the Government of India prescribed as a mode of publication under r. 119 of the Defence of India Rules that copies of the schedule should be issued to the retailers. There is no evidence in the present case that a copy of the schedule was actually issued to the Petitioner, consequentlp it was argued that he was not guilty of any offence as there had been no due publication under r. 119 of the Defence of India Rules. We are unable to accept this interpretation of the letters referred to. It seems to us that the Government of India prescribed as a mode of publication merely notification in the official Gazette, but that they further desired that wide publicity should be attained by sending copies of the schedules to retailers wherever possible. We are unable to accept this interpretation of the letters referred to. It seems to us that the Government of India prescribed as a mode of publication merely notification in the official Gazette, but that they further desired that wide publicity should be attained by sending copies of the schedules to retailers wherever possible. We are unable to hold the view that failure to furnish a particular retailer with a copy of the schedule was failure duly to publish the amendment and the schedule as required by r. 119 of the Defence of India Rules. 3. Mr. Mukherjee next contended that even if actual service of a copy of the schedule upon the retailer was not necessary under r. 119 still a retailer would not be guilty of any offence unless it were shown that he had knowledge that a new amendment had been made, or in the alternative that he would not be guilty if it could be shown that he had no knowledge that the new amendment had been made. In this connection Mr. Mukherjee referred to the evidence of prosecution witness No. 5, who admitted that the India Gazette does not regularly come to the District of Malda and that a copy of amendment No. 2 dated May 19th, 1944, was not received the head quarters of the District until August 18th, 1941; he further proved that though copies of the schedule were supplied to Sub- Inspectors and among others to the Sub-Inspector of Nawabganj, within whose area the Petitioner carries on business, no report had been received from that Sub-Inspector regarding circulation of these schedules to the retailers. Mr. Mukherjee further pointed to the evidence of the witness showing that the subsequent amendment No. 4 dated August 19th, 1944, was not real the head quarters until after the occurrence for which the Petitioner was being prosecuted, namely, the occurrence of October 29th, 1944. Mr. Mukherjee also referred to the evidence of Defence Witness No. 1, a medical practitioner of Nawabganj, who proved that he had not received copies of the list of the controlled prices on the date of the occurrence. From this evidence Mr. Mukherjee has asked us to hold that the Petitioner proved that he had knowledge of the amended Order. The Courts below have refused to draw this inference. From this evidence Mr. Mukherjee has asked us to hold that the Petitioner proved that he had knowledge of the amended Order. The Courts below have refused to draw this inference. They have come to the conclusion that the Petitioner had actual knowledge of the contents of amendment No. 2. In my opinion absence of knowledge on the part of the Petitioner as no defence to the charge. There had been proper notification in the official Gazette, and absence of knowledge after due notification does not seem to me to be a defence to a charge of the present kind. Indeed, after due publication in the Gazette, retailers must be deemed to have knowledge. On the other hand, the circumstances do suggest that in this-out-of-the way portion of the Province the Petitioner had failed to keep himself aware of notifications and had actual knowledge that amendment No. 2 had been passed. This absence of knowledge on the part of the Petitioner is, in my opinion, a circumstance to be taken into consideration in awarding sentence but is not a circumstance entitling the Petitioner to acquittal. 4. In these circumstances I would hold that the petitioner was rightly convicted, but that the sentence is in the circumstances excessive. In my opinion the Rule should be made solute in part only. The conviction should be upheld, but the sentence should be reduced to a fine of Rs. 100 (one hundred), in default rigorous imprisonment for one month. Roxburgh, J. I agree.