Order: This is a petition in Revision against the Order of the District Magistrate confirming that of Sub-Magistrate, Parvatipur, under section 12 (2) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act. The petitioner was charged with an offence under section 29 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act read with rule 28-E of the rules framed under the Act. The case against him was that on the 31st of October, 1953, he had in his possession 101 bags of lak-dhall flour, a prohibited article, for purposes of sale. This lak-dhall, otherwise known as kesari dhall was prohibited from use under rule 28-E which recites: “No person shall, either by himself or by any servant or agent, sell or offer or expose for sale, or have in his possession for the purpose of sale, under any description, or use as an ingredient in the preparation of any article of food intended for sale: (a) Kesari gram (Lathyrus Sativas) and its products; (b) Kesari dhall (Lathyrus Sativas) and its products; (c) Kesari dhall flour (Lathyrus Sativas) and its products; (d) a mixture of kesari gram (Lathyrus Sativas) and bengal gram (Cicar Arietinum)or any other gram; (e) a mixture of kesari dhall (Lathyrus Sativas) and bengal gram dhall (Cicar Arietinum) or any other dhall; (f) a mixture of kesari dhall flour (Lathyrus Sativas) and bengal gram flour (Cicar Arietinum) or any other flour”. Any violation of this rule is punishable under rule 29. The defence was that the lak-dhall did not belong to him, that the bags were sent by Mahakoshal Roller Flour Mills, Raipur, to one Ch. Visweswara Rao in Par-vatipur and that, as the latter failed to take delivery of the goods on payment of money, the accused who was a banker, was requested by the consignor to store the same in his godowns on condition of paying rent for the godown, and that these goods were to be transported to Rayagada for sale there. This defence found favour with the trial Magistrate who thought that the accused did not have this dhall for purposes of sale and that he was only acting as the agent of the proprietors of Mahakoshal Roller Flour Mills, Raipur. In this view, he acquitted the accused. But he ordered the destruction of the goods under section 12(2) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act. In this view, he acquitted the accused. But he ordered the destruction of the goods under section 12(2) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act. This matter was taken in appeal to the District Magistrate under section 520, Criminal Procedure Code who confirmed the order of destruction. Hence this Revision. In support of this Revision Case, Mr. G. Balaparameswara Rao argued that section 12 (2) is attracted only to a case where an offence has been committed under the Act and, as the accused was acquitted, no order could be passed under that section. I do not think I can give effect to this contention. Section 12 (2) is in these terms: “whether or not complaint is laid before the Magistrate of any offence under the Indian Penal Code, or under this Act, if it appears to the Magistrate on taking such evidence as he thinks necessary that any such article is adulterated or other than what it purports or is represented to be, or any such, utensil or vessel is of such kind or in such state as is described in section 9 he may order the same- (a) to be forfeited to the local authority, or (b) to be destroyed at the charge of the owner or person in whose possession it was at the time of seizure in such manner as to prevent the same being again exposed or hawked about for sale or used for human food or for the manufacture or preparation of or for containing any such article as aforesaid.” On the language of this sub-section, it does not appear to be necessary that any one should be found guilty of any offence. All that is required is that the Magistrate, on taking evidence, should think it necessary and that the food concerned is of the nature described in section 9. The intendment of this section is that a deleterious stuff should not be exposed to sale, which could only be prevented by the destruction thereof. That apart, it cannot be said that no offence has been committed in this case. It may be that the person who is guilty of the offence cannot be punished in this case. The intendment of this section is that a deleterious stuff should not be exposed to sale, which could only be prevented by the destruction thereof. That apart, it cannot be said that no offence has been committed in this case. It may be that the person who is guilty of the offence cannot be punished in this case. Surely, the principal of the petitioner was in possession of the stuff through the petitioner within the meaning of rule 28-E. It cannot be postulated that no offence has been committed, merely because the person is beyond the reach of the Court and so cannot be punished. Authority for this view is found in a Bench decision of the Madras High Court In re Ismail Abdulla Salt1. It follows that it was within the competence of the trial Court to pass an order under section 12(2) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act. It was next urged by Balaparameswara Rao that having found that the title to this property is vested in a third person living in outside territory which has banned the use of this article, the proper course was to direct the transport of this dhall to that place. If effect is to be given to this argument, the very purpose of clause(b) of section 12(2) is defeated. The object of clause(b) is to prevent the some article again being exposed or hawked about for sale for use as human food. To give effect to the request of the Counsel for the petitioner will be to violate the terms of this sub-section. Therefore, the only proper course to be adopted is to destroy such of the bags in the possession of the petitioner as contained this lak-dhall. It appears only samples were taken from five bags. It is desirable that before destruction is carried out, every one of the bags should be tested and if some of them do not contain this injurious stuff, they should be returned to the petitioner. I also direct that the empty gunnies of such of the bags as contain lak-dhall be returned to the petitioner. In other respects, the petition is dismissed. D.L.N. ----- Petition dismissed.