JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS judgment will also govern the disposal of Cr. A. No. 307 of 1971. ( 2. ) BOTH these appeals raise a common question as to whether a person found selling adulterated milk can be convicted under section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter called the Act ). ( 3. ) THE facts giving rise to these appeals are simple. For selling adulated milk, respondents Jadhavrao and Ganpat have been convicted under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. They have, however, been acquitted of the offence punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act. The short question for consideration is whether a person, who is selling adulterated milk can be convicted of an offence punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act if he has not obtained a licence as required by the rules framed under the Act. ( 4. ) NOW, sections 16 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) read as under:- "16. (1) If any person (a) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food- (i) which is adulterated or mis branded or the sale of which is prohibited by the food (Health) authority in the interest of public health, (ii) other than an article of food referred to in sub-clause (i), in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder. " A person can be convicted under section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act if two conditions are satisfied. Firstly, that person should be importing, manufacturing for sale or storing, selling or distributing any article of food other than article of food referred to in sub-clause (i) of section 16 (1) (a ). Secondly, the act should be in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder. Unless both these conditions are satisfied, a person cannot be held guilty under section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act. Now, in the instant cases, the aforesaid respondents are proved to have sold adulterated milk, an article of food referred to in sub-clause (i) of section 16 (l) (a ). Unless both these conditions are satisfied, a person cannot be held guilty under section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act. Now, in the instant cases, the aforesaid respondents are proved to have sold adulterated milk, an article of food referred to in sub-clause (i) of section 16 (l) (a ). The fact that adulterated milk is also considered to be an article of food is clear from a perusal of the provisions of section 7 of the Act. That section reads as under-Prohibition of manufacture, sale etc. of certain articles of food. "7. No person shall himself or by person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute- (i) any adulterated food, (ii) any mis branded food, (iii) any article of food for the sale 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 in the interests of public health, or (v) any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder. " It is thus clear that in the scheme of the Act adulterated milk is also an article of food. It is an article of food referred to in sub-clause (i) of section 16 (l) (a) of the Act. Therefore, in a case where a person is prosecuted for selling adulterated milk, even though the sale may be in contravention of the rules under the Act as no licence, as required by the rules, is obtained, the first condition for the applicability of section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act is not satisfied. Such a person is liable to be dealt with under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, but not under sub-clause (ii) of section 16 (1) (a) of the Act. There is, therefore, no reason to interfere with the orders of acquittal. ( 5. ) UNDER the circumstances, the appeals are devoid of any merit, and are accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.