Koshy, J.

Doubting the correctness of the ratio in Kunhimoideenkutty v. State of Kerala 1998 (2) KLT 128 a learned Single Judge of this Court referred this matter to the Division Bench. According to the learned Single Judge, the following issues arise for consideration in these appeals against a verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on the accused persons under Clause 16 of the Kerala Kerosene Control Order read with sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act:

Is the definition of 'Kerosene' in Clause 2 (f) of the Kerala Kerosene Control Order, 1968 comprehensive? Is it to be reckoned as exhaustive, explanatory, exclusive or inclusive? Even after the Chemical Examiner has opined that the contraband article seized is 'genuine kerosene', should the prosecution fail for the simple reason that the flame test has not been conducted? Does the decision in Kunhimoideenkutty v. State of Kerala [1988 (2 ) KLT 128] insist that there must be evidence of the length of the flame in all prosecutions for violation of the Kerosene Control Order?

2. The facts of the case are correctly and beautifully summarised by the learned Single Judge in the reference order. Therefor