Horwill, J.

1. The first accused in this case was the owner of a shop where he kept and offered for sale certain ghee which was found on analysis to be adulterated to the extent of 35 per cent. The second accused was working in that shop and his duty was to sell the ghee to customers. The Sanitary Inspector entered the shop, exercised his powers under Section 14 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, and demanded a sample from the second accused, who was then selling articles in his masters absence. When this sample was found to be adulterated ghee, both the accused were prosecuted. The Sub-Magistrate of Guntur, thought that both of them were guilty. In appeal, the Special First Class Magistrate came to the conclusion that because the first accused was absent and no notice was given to him as required by Section 15 that it was intended to have the sample analysed, that the trial and conviction of the first accused was vitiated. He however considered that the conviction of the second accused was right because he thought that he must be deemed to have offered this adulterated ghee for sale. The second accused has therefore preferred this revision petition against the affir