JUDGMENT.- This is an appeal against an order of acquittal. The appellant, the Food Inspector of Kozhikode Municipality filed a complaint before the District Magistrate, Kozhikode, against the respondent for an offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (Central) and Rule 10 of the Kerala Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The case against the respondent was that he was trading in milk without obtaining the necessary licence from the local Municipality. On 7th November, 1960, the Municipality served a notice (Exhibit P-1) on the respondent informing him that he should take out a licence for conducting milk trade in his place of business. On receipt of this notice, the respondent on 10th November, 1960, applied for a licence. The respondent's place of business was inspected by the Health Inspector who reported that the sanitary condition of the shed and premises was unsatisfactory and as such the licence should be refused. A notice (Exhibit P-3), dated 28th November, 1960, refusing the licence was served on the respondent. On 28th December, 1960 when the Health Inspector again inspected the respondent's place of business, the respondent was found conducting the business of selling milk without obtaining the necessary licence and without rectifying the sanitary defects pointed out to him in the notice refusing the licence. Prosecution was therefore launched against the respondent. P.W.1 the complainant and P.W.2 who served the notice refusing the licence on the respondent were examined on the side of the prosecution and they gave evidence in support of the complaint. The accused respondent contended that on 8th January, 1958 he had applied for a licence for the sale of milk in his place of business and that a licence was granted to him on 18th February, 1960. He further contended that a licence when once issued should run its full course of two years from the date of issue and so at the time of the launching of this prosecution, he had a valid licence. The learned Magistrate accepted the defence case and finding the respondent not guilty acquitted him. The order of acquittal is, I think, contrary to law and has occasioned miscarriage of justice. The learned Magistrate accepted the defence case and finding the respondent not guilty acquitted him. The order of acquittal is, I think, contrary to law and has occasioned miscarriage of justice. Rule 51 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (Central) provides that: A licence shall, unless sooner suspended or cancelled, be in force for such period as the State Government may prescribe.” The only restriction being that specified in the Proviso, namely- “……..that if application for a fresh licence is made before the expiry of the period of validity of the licence, the licence shall continue to be in force until orders are passed on the application The relevant rule framed by the Kerala Government is Rule 14. It reads as follows: “A licence shall, unless sooner suspended or cancelled, be in force for a period of twoyear at a time: Provided that if application for renewal is made before the expiry of the period of validity of a licence, the licence shall continue in force until orders are passed on such application.” The defence contention is that the period of two years should be calculated from the date of issue of the licence. I do not think this contention can be accepted. Exhibit D-1 licence clearly specified that the licence is granted for two years from 8th January, 1958. Form No.5 the model form in which licence for sale of food is to be issued provides that: “The licence will be in force for two years from……..”. It is in this form that Exhibit D-1 is issued and date given therein as the date from which the licence is granted is 8th January, 1958. In the face of this, it is idle to contend that the period of the licence should be taken as two years not from 8th January, 1958 but from 18th February, 1960 when the licence was actually issued. The learned counsel for the respondent sought to build an argument on the difference in the wording of rule 8 relating to licence for manufacture of goods for sale and rule 14 regarding licence for sale of goods. While the former specifies that licence shall be in force for a period of two years from the date mentioned therein, the latter says that it shall be in force for a period of two years at a time. While the former specifies that licence shall be in force for a period of two years from the date mentioned therein, the latter says that it shall be in force for a period of two years at a time. As the licence in the case relates to the stocking and distribution of milk it is argued that the licence must be in force for two years from the date of issue of the licence. Though the words used in the rules are not exactly similar the purport and the meaning conveyed, by both are the same, viz., that the licence shall be in force for a period of two years at a time unless sooner suspended or cancelled-from the date specified therein-and there is nothing in the wording to warrant the interpretation that in the latter case the starting point is the date of issue of the licence. The form prescribed for the licence in both cases is also one and the same. The date mentioned in Exhibit D-1 is 8th January, 1958 and the period of two years has expired on 8th January, 1960. Hence when the accused was conducting the trade without a licence on 28th December, 1960 he acted in contravention of the Rules. It is also noteworthy that the accused himself had entertained no doubt about the date of expiry of the licence and had on 10th November, 1960 actually applied for a licence in pursuance of (he notice served on him which happened to be refused since the sanitary conditions of the place of business was found to be unsatisfactory. The order of acquittal is hence set aside and the accused is convic;ed under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 10 of the Kerala Rules and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. M.C.M.-----Appeal allowed.