JUDGMENT : Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. This is an appeal by Messrs Ghasiram Lachmin-arayan and Co. and its five partners, by special leave, against the order of the Calcutta High Court maintaining their conviction by the Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, of an offence under section 462 read with section 537 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (West Bengal Act XXXIII of 1951), hereinafter called the Act. 2. Sri Khandelwal Oil Mills sent mustard oil in tank wagon No. 37250 on December 12, 1954 from Delhi Sahadara to Calcutta. The wagon reached Calcutta on December 22, 1954, and the partners of the firm appellant No. 1 took delivery of the tank wagon at about 1 p.m , that day. At 2.15 p.m. Dr. B.K. Das, Food Inspector, Calcutta Corporation, took sample of the oil. At the time, Damodar Khandelwal, an employee of the appellant firm, was present and in fact received the price of the oil taken for sample by the Food Inspector. This oil was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst for the City of Calcutta. The appellants were, thereafter, prosecuted and convicted by the Municipal Magistrate, of the offence under section 462 read with section 537 of the Act. It is not disputed for the appellants that the mustard oil in this tank wagon was adulterated. It was not disputed before the Courts below that they were in possession of the tank wagon when the sample was taken by the Food Inspector. But it has been urged before us that the appellants, even though they had taken delivery of the tank wagon from the railway authorities, were not in possession of it as they had no control over the oil in the wagon. But it has been urged before us that the appellants, even though they had taken delivery of the tank wagon from the railway authorities, were not in possession of it as they had no control over the oil in the wagon. It was further contended for the appellants in the Courts below that they did not store the oil for sale because there was an arrangement between the Deputy Commissioner of the Enforcement Branch of Police and the U.P. Oil Millers' Association, Calcutta, of which the appellant firm was not a member, that after the arrival of a tank wagon containing mustard oil in Calcutta, the consignees would inform the Enforcement Branch, through the U.P. Oil Millers' Association, and that the Enforcement Branch would, in cooperation with the Calcutta Corporation, take samples of the oil and that till the report of the Analyst showed that the oil was pure mustard oil, it would not be offered for sale. It is contended that such an arrangement rebutted the presumption that arose under sub-s. (4) of section 462 of the Act, on the basis of the appellants' being in possession of the oil and being in the habit of storing oil for sale, and that therefore the conviction of the appellants for storing adulterated mustard oil for sale, cannot be sustained. 3. The appellants were in possession of the tank wagon and the oil contained in it, after they had taken delivery of the tank wagon from the railway authorities. They had full control over its contents and it was by virtue of this control that they allowed the Food Inspector to take sample of the oil from the tank wagon. We therefore see no force in the contention that the appellants were not in possession of the oil in the tank wagon. 4. It is not in dispute that the oil in the tank wagon was meant for sale. It was obtained for that purpose. The alleged arrangement between the Deputy Commissioner of the Enforcement Branch of Police and the U.P. Oil Millers' Association, whose services could be availed of by the non-members also, has not held to be proved. 4. It is not in dispute that the oil in the tank wagon was meant for sale. It was obtained for that purpose. The alleged arrangement between the Deputy Commissioner of the Enforcement Branch of Police and the U.P. Oil Millers' Association, whose services could be availed of by the non-members also, has not held to be proved. There is nothing in the statement of Rai Bahadur Satyendra Nath Mukherjee, Deputy Commissioner of Enforcement Branch, Calcutta Police, examined in the High Court, or in the statements of any other defence witness, to the effect that the oil in the tank wagon was not to be sold till the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst to the effect that it was pure oil. The utmost that has been established from the evidence on record is that the Deputy Commissioner of the Enforcement Branch and the U.P. Oil Millers' Association were anxious to see that pure mustard oil was received and sold in Calcutta and for this purpose, an arrangement had been arrived at that the arrival of a tank wagon containing mustard oil would be communicated to the Deputy Commissioner of the Enforcement Branch. The report Exhibit AH(6) of Sri Mukherjee, with respect to the meeting of the U.P. Oil Millers' Association held on June 9, 1954 further says : "In case it was detected adulterated, the goods would not be allowed to be sold in the market" 5. It is clear that once the oil is found to be adulterated, neither the Enforcement Branch of the Police would allow it to be sold, nor the importer of the oil would dare to sell it openly. There is nothing in Sri Mukherjee's report or in the proceedings (Exhibit B2) of the meeting of the U.P. Oil Millers' Association to show that, irrespective of any legal effect, the dealers had agreed not to sell the oil imported till such oil has been certified to be pure. The arrangement relied upon, therefore, does not help in any way in rebutting the presumption which is to be raised against the person in possession under sub-section (4) of section 426 of the Act, with respect to the storage of oil being for sale. 6. No letter from the appellant firm intimating the arrival of the tank wagon on December 22, 1954, to the U.P. Oil Millers' Association has been proved. 6. No letter from the appellant firm intimating the arrival of the tank wagon on December 22, 1954, to the U.P. Oil Millers' Association has been proved. The letter Exhibit F, dated December 20, 1954, simply intimated to the U.P. Oil Millers' Association that the tank wagon was to arrive very soon and that steps should be taken for having its contents tested and passed by the authorities concerned. There is nothing in this letter as well to indicate that the appellant firm was not to sell the oil till it was certified to be pure. 7. The genuineness of the letter, Exhibit E, said to have been sent by the U.P. Oil Millers' Association to the Deputy Commissioner, Enforcement Branch on December 22, 1954 informing the latter of the arrival of the tank wagon and requesting him to have the sample drawn and to favour the Association with report has been rightly doubted by the High Court. It bears no mark of its having been put up before the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner of the Enforcement Branch. Its receipt in the office of the Deputy Commissioner could not be borne out from any office record. Even if such a letter was sent to the Deputy Commissioner of the Enforcement Branch, it was in pursuance of the arrangement, which, as we have said above, falls short of rebutting the presumption raised under sub-section (4) of section 462 of the Act. 8. Even if it could be said, on the basis of the alleged arrangement and the letter of the appellant firm to the U.P. Oil Millers' Association that the appellant firm was not to sell the oil till it was certified to be pure, we are of opinion that this too will not rebut the presumption under sub-s. (4) of section 462 of the Act. What is to be rebutted is the presumption that the oil was stored for sale. Neither the arrangement nor any other conduct of the appellant firm was to the effect that the oil received in the tank wagon was not for sale and would not be sold. The oil was received for purposes of sale. It was stored in the wagon for that purpose. It would have been sold if the oil had been sold if the oil had been found pure. The oil was received for purposes of sale. It was stored in the wagon for that purpose. It would have been sold if the oil had been sold if the oil had been found pure. Nobody would say that he would sell oil established to be adulterated. The question of the oil being stored for sale does not depend on what the importer might do in case the oil is found to be imputed, but depends on the purpose of the storage and therefore, any potential intention not to sell the oil in certain circumstances does not affect the question of the storage of oil being for sale. In fact, it cannot be disputed that the oil was for sale, when the sample was taken and could be sold if the appellant firm wanted to sell it. The storage of the oil in the tank wagon must have a definite nature and, in all the circumstances of the case, its nature could be nothing else but storage for sale. 9. We are, therefore, of opinion that the appellants have been rightly held lo be in possession of the oil in the tank wagon and of having stored the oil for sale. Their conviction is correct. We accordingly dismiss, the appeal. Appeal dismissed.