ORDER Of the two revision petitioners V. K. Srinivasan (accused 1) is the proprietor of a concern known as “Vinayakam Coffee and Tea Works” situate-in Door No. 107, West Masi Street, Madurai Town. Narasingaperumal (accused 2) is an employee of this shop. On 13th November, 1961, the Food Inspector of the Madurai Municipality (P.W. 1) went to this shop, accompanied by P.W. 2 and others at 2.45 a.m. Accused 2 (employee) was then alone in the shop, and he sold to P.W. 1 three packets of tea at 40 nP. per packet. Accused 2, at the instance of the Officers, also signed on the wrappers (M.Os. 1 to 3) which contained the tea-dust purchased by P.W. 1. At that time, the proprietor (accused 1) came into the shop, and finding that these samples of the tea dust stored in the shop for the sale were being seized by these Officers, raised some protest and difficulty. He is also supposed to have claimed that the tea-dust packets actually sold contained only tea-dust sent as samples, from another firm which were not intended for sale to the public. In due course of time, the samples purchased were sent to the Public Analyst, and his report (Exhibit P-17) is explicitly to the effect that these quantities of tea-dust were adulterated with harmful substances, namely, water-soluable dyestuff, derived from coal-tar. Upon these facts, both the revision petitioners were prosecuted under section 2(ix)(j) , 7(ii) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, read with rule 29 of the Rules. They have been convicted by the Courts below, and accused I has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000. Accused 2 (employee) has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50, and that fine has been paid. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners has mainly pressed the ground; that, according to the first revision petitioner these tea-dust packets were not for sale to the public, but had merely been forwarded to him as samples. It appears that the packets were forwarded by the Stella Tea Company, which it is alleged is the agency really responsible for the adulteration. The learned Sessions Judge, in appeal, has fully considered this argument, which was pressed on behalf of the first revision petitioner, with some degree of emphasis. It appears that the packets were forwarded by the Stella Tea Company, which it is alleged is the agency really responsible for the adulteration. The learned Sessions Judge, in appeal, has fully considered this argument, which was pressed on behalf of the first revision petitioner, with some degree of emphasis. The learned Magistrate, who tried this case, came to the conclusion, on the facts that the packets had been actually sold to P.W. 1. The learned Sessions Judge points out that, even if there was no actual sale, the evidence shows that these packets were kept along with other- packets, in a glass case in front of the shop. In other words, the packets were stored in the shop, and exposed for sale. In Public Prosecutor v. Venkataraman (1958) MLJ. (Crl.) 236, Somasundaram, J., had occasion to consider the implications of a circumstance of this kind, though no actual sale might have occurred. The learned Judge observed: “If they (articles) were in the shop, then it would be presumed to be for sale.” I notice that under section 16(i)(a) of Act XXXVII of 1954, even a storage for sale of any article of food in contravention of the provisions of the Act, is a penal offence. The fact that the concern which is supposed to have supplied the harmful adulterated substance, namely, Stella Tea Company, has not been proceeded against within the scope of the present prosecution, cannot mitigate or diminish the offence, as far as the present revision petitioners are concerned. It may be that accused 1, finding; that these Officers of the Food Adulteration Department were seizing the packets of tea-dust kept for sale, which he (accused 1) might have had reason to fear, would prove to be adulterated on analysis, tried to escape by disclaiming responsibility for the packets, and claiming that they were mere samples. It is not claimed by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that the packets were labelled as. samples, or that there is any documentary evidence, such as accounts etc., to show that they were not part of the tea received in this shop for sale to the public, and exposed among other packets for sale in the glass almirah. Under the circumstances, therefore, I am clearly of the opinion that both the revision petitioners were rightly convicted upon the charges. Under the circumstances, therefore, I am clearly of the opinion that both the revision petitioners were rightly convicted upon the charges. As far as accused 1 is concerned, this is a second offence and that is not in dispute. The sentence of simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000 is thus the minimum provided for under the law (Proviso to section 16(r)(g)(ii)) unless special and adequate reasons to the contrary are specified in the judgment. I am quite unable to find any such reasons, from the record. On the contrary, the public interest certainly required that harmful adulteration of food stuffs sold to the public should be very gravely viewed and punished ; the element of deference has to be secured, in such cases, and that can only be done by dealing with detected offenders in an adequately severe manner. Hence, I confirm both the convictions as well as the sentences and dismiss the Revision proceeding. V.S.-----Petition dismissed.