JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned first temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Aligarh dated 2nd March, 1973 upholding the conviction of the applicant for the offence under section 17(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that a complaint was filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Koil, district Aligarh by the Inspector of Drugs U.P. on 23rd December, 1971 to the effect that the house of Angoori Devi (Kapoori Devi) the applicant was searched with the assistance of local police on 4th November, 1969 and during the search Shrimati Angoori Devi was present. In the search the following drugs were seized by the Inspector :- - (a) 133x18 (2394) pudiya Anandkar (b) 100 Pudiya (loose) Anandkar. After recovery, a sample of the recovered drug was sent to the Analyst who thereafter deported that the sample was not of the standard quality. On these allegations, it was alleged that Angoori Devi alias Kapoori Devi had committed the offence under section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It was further alleged in the aforesaid complaint that the seized drugs (ANANDKAR) was an imitation of genuine Anandkar and a product not actually manufactured by Anandkar Karyalaya, Etawah and therefore, statements made on the pudiyas found from the possession of Smt. Angoori Devi were false and misleading. Accordingly Angoori Devi alias Kapoor Devi was guilty of having misbranded it. 3. The applicant pleaded not guilty and asserted that she was not in fact the manufacturer of the Anandkar found from her possession. The Magistrate convicted the applicant for the offence under section 17(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetices Act and sentenced her to six months simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Aggrieved the applicant filed appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. The appeal was dismissed and her conviction and sentence were maintained. Hence this revision. 4. As the conviction of the applicant is now only with regard to the offence contemplated by section 17(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, it is not necessary for me to deal with the facts in detail. I would, however, like to reproduce the aforesaid provision, which reads as under : - "If it purports to be the product of a place or country of which it is not truly a product". I would, however, like to reproduce the aforesaid provision, which reads as under : - "If it purports to be the product of a place or country of which it is not truly a product". It has come in evidence that Anandkar found from the possession of the applicant was the limitation of the genuine Anandkar and was not a product of Anandkar Karyalaya, Etawah. The applicant was a resident of Hathras and it was recovered from her at Hathras. Under section 17(b) a person would be guilty of misbranding a drug if the drug found from his possession purports to be the product of a place or country of which it is not truly a product. The evidence mentioned above indicated that the applicant wanted to represent to the public that it was the Anandkar manufactured by the firm at Etawah. In fact, it was not the Anandkar which was manufactured at Etawah but was manufactured at Hathras. Accordingly the provision of clause (b) of Section 17 were clearly attracted' It has been held in Dharam Deo Gupta v. State, AIR 1958 All. 865 that the word "place" used in Section 17(b) is not a synonym for country and it is one of the rules of interpretation that surplusages are not used in enactments. The word "place" definitely connotes a different meaning from the word 'country'. It means that where the product of one town is being described as the product of another town, it amounts to a misbrand within the meaning of section 17(b). Accordingly the applicant was guilty of the offence of misbranding. 5. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant was that as the question put to the applicant under section 342 Cr. P.C. was not with regard to the stocking of goods by her, therefore, her conviction under section is bad. The submission is untenable. I have gone through the statement and found that this question was put to her. The putting of this question in my opinion, sufficiently complied with the requirement of the law and merely because she was not asked that she had stocked the goods is of no consequence. As a matter of fact, the applicant admitted in her statement under section 342 Cr. P.C. that the drugs mentioned above were found from her possession. The putting of this question in my opinion, sufficiently complied with the requirement of the law and merely because she was not asked that she had stocked the goods is of no consequence. As a matter of fact, the applicant admitted in her statement under section 342 Cr. P.C. that the drugs mentioned above were found from her possession. It could be recovered from her possession only when she had stocked them. Accordingly, the second submission has also no substance. 6. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. But as the applicant was a lady, it appears appropriate that she may not be sent to jail. Hence I reduce the sentence to the period already undergone but maintain the fine imposed on her.