JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - Applicant Nandan was convicted by a Magistrate 1st Class, Mainpuri, under Section 7116 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to pay Rs. 500/- as fine. In default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo two month's simple imprisonment. On appeal his conviction and sentence were maintained by the learned Additional Session Judge, Mainpuri; hence this revision. 2. According to the prosecution on July 27, 1965 at about 9 a.m. Food Inspector Bhupendra Singh inspected the Milk Centre of M|s. Hindustan Levers Ltd. at Shikohabad and demanded the licence from the applicant who was working as Centre In charge for stocking milk but no such licence was produced before him. Accordingly a complaint was lodged against the applicant for an offence under Section 7 [16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for breach of Rules 49 and 50 (3) framed under the said Act. 3. The defence of the applicant was that milk was simply collected at Shikohabad and sent to Etah in tankers, that it was not stocked at the Centre for sale, that the applicant was not the Manager of the dairy and that his prosecution was wholly misconceived. One H.P. Singh appeared in defence who stated that he was the Milk Collection Manager of the Hindustan Levers Ltd. which had its headquarters at Etah, that the accused was the Centre Incharge at Shikohabad where the milk is purchased and then sent in tankers to Etah where it is used for manufacturing milk products which is sold by the Company at Bombay. According to the witness no licence was required for collecting milk at the Centre as milk is not sold by the Company. 4. The courts below held that as "the ultimate objects of storing milk at Shikohabad is the manufacture of milk products for sale, and it is not the store simpliciter without any object" and as "some process is done to break down the temperature of the milk to a considerable degree so that it may not be contaminated" a part of the manufacturing process of milk products is conducted at Shikohabad for which a licence was necessary under the rules and the accused had infringed the provisions of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has raised three contentions in support of this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has raised three contentions in support of this revision. It is urged that as M/s. Hindustan Levers Ltd. do not deal in milk but in milk products they were not required to take any licence under the rules for collecting the milk at their various milk centres. The second contention raised by the learned counsel is that when the milk is cooled at the milk centre to avoid contamination that process does not form part of the manufacturing process of milk products and the courts below have taken an erroneous view of law in this regard. The third point raised by the learned counsel is that as the sanction in this case was for prosecuting the Manager of Hindustan Levers Dairy at Shikohabad and as there is neither any dairy maintained by the Hindustan Levers Ltd. at Shikohabad nor the applicant is the Manager his prosecution is wholly misconceived. 6. In order to determine the questions of law raised at the bar it is necessary to read the relevant rules. Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules reads: "Conditions for licence. (1) No person shall manufacture, sell, stock, distribute or exhibit for sale any of the following articles of food except under a licence: (a) milk or skimmed milk or separated milk (or toned milk or reconstituted milk), (b) milk products, including Khoa, cream, Rabri, Dahi etc (c) ......... (d) ......... Sub-clause (4) of rule 50 reads: "If articles of food are manufactured, stored or exhibited for sale at more than one place, separate applications shall be made and a separate i licence shall be issued in respect of each such place." 7. A perusal of sub-clause (1) of the aforesaid rule makes it obvious that it is stocking of the articles for purposes of sale which is prohibited and not otherwise. The words "for sale" occurring in the rule govern the words "manufacture, stock, distribute or exhibit". Therefore, if a person is stocking any article of food mentioned in the rule for purposes of sale without a licence he commits a breach of the rule but if he is stocking it not for sale no licence is necessary. Any other interpretation will lead to absurd results. A person with a small family possesses a cow which yields 15 seers of milk in the morning and 5 seers in the evening. Any other interpretation will lead to absurd results. A person with a small family possesses a cow which yields 15 seers of milk in the morning and 5 seers in the evening. In the morning the family consumes 7 seers ' and collects the rest to be consumed in the evening. The family is not required to obtain a licence for stocking the t milk. Under medical advice infants and I tender children are sometimes not given unadulterated milk. Water is mixed to dilute it before administration. The process is not covered by the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Section 7 of the Act lays down that no person shall himself or any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute....... (i) any adulterated food; (ii) any misbranded food; (iii) any article of food for the sake of which a licence is prescribed, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence; (iv) any article of food the sale of which is for the time being prohibited by the Food (Health) Authority with a view to preventing the outbreak or spread of infectious diseases; or (v) any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder. The emphasis is on the word "sale". It is the storing, distributing, selling and manufacturing adulterated food for the I purposes of sale which is prohibited and I not otherwise. 8. Rule 50 treats the milk products distinct from milk. That is clear from the I fact that the two are mentioned separately. It is not disputed that M/s. Hindus-I tan Levers Ltd., do not indulge in selling milk. It is also not disputed that they I had not collected or stocked the milk products at Shikohabad. That being so, they had not infringed rule 50 by stocking milk even if it is held that the collection of milk by them at Shikohabad I for being transported to Etah amounted I to stocking of it at that centre. 9. The question, however, which remains for consideration is whether by cooling the milk with the aid of mechanical process at Shikohabad in order to avoid contamination they are performing a part of the manufacturing process of milk products. If so, in my opinion, it will be necessary for them to obtain a licence within the meaning of rule 50. 9. The question, however, which remains for consideration is whether by cooling the milk with the aid of mechanical process at Shikohabad in order to avoid contamination they are performing a part of the manufacturing process of milk products. If so, in my opinion, it will be necessary for them to obtain a licence within the meaning of rule 50. I, however, find it difficult to hold that cooling of the milk in order to preserve its constituents is a part of the manufacturing process of the milk products. The process of cooling the milk is resorted to not for changing its constituents but for preserving them so that it may reach its destination in the same condition in which it has been procured. The manufacturing process of milk products starts after the milk is received at the premises of the factory at Etah for which they hold a licence. 10. The word "process" means a sequence of operations or changes undergone. Therefore, the process of the manufacturing of milk products must mean that something is done to make unadulterated milk change its constituents or form for ultimately reaching the shape of the milk products. It is thus obvious that by keeping down the temperature of the milk to a certain level for preserving its constituents and crystallised form no process for the purpose of manufacturing milk product is carried on at the centre at Shikohabad. 11. In this view of the matter it is clear that M|s. Hindustan Levers Ltd., are not required in law to obtain a licence for collecting milk at Shikohabad for the purpose of its transport to their factory at Etah and the prosecution of the applicant on that ground is wholly unsustainable in law. 12. In the result this revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant are set aside. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded.