1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 4 of Act VI of 1912, which is a Local Act of the United Provinces Legislative Council. He has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 80. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The applicant is a commission agent and as such he exposed for sale what purported to be ghee. The ghee no doubt belonged to those persons who had sent it to him for sale. But it was he who exposed it for sale, and he exposed it as being good and genuine ghee. The Chief Sanitary Inspector of the Agra Municipal Board went to his warehouse where he saw certain cannisters of ghee open and exposed for sale. There were a large number of other cannisters unopened. With the consent of Kedar Nath he took several samples of ghee, gave one to Kedar Nath, kept one himself and sent one to the public analyst. The certificates of the latter person show clearly that the ghee had been adulterated. The complaint in the present prosecution was signed by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board on the 6th of October 1917. This officer on the 20th of September 1917 was authorised by the Municipal Board to institute prosecutions under the Act. The samples obtained from the applicant were obtained on the 12th of September. Three points have been taken before me, one is that the prosecution is illegal in the present instance as it has not been made with the order or consent in writing of the proper person and also that on the 12th of September the Executive Officer had no power to institute the prosecution. The second point is that Section 6 applies to the case and exonerates the applicant. The third point is that the applicant has acted in good faith. He sold what he had received from others and a smaller fine would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. As regards the first point, there is no force in it. On the date on which the Complaint was made the Executive Officer had full power and the Court was, therefore, fully justified in acting upon the complaint. As regards Section 6 it clearly does not apply to the present applicant. Admittedly Clause (a) of that section could not possibly apply to him as he is only a commission agent and had never purchased the ghee in question. Moreover, in the present case he has made no sale at all but he had only exposed for sale. The act may be defective but that is not the fault at any body else but the legislative body. Section 6 clearly does not apply to the present case. So far as the sentence is concerned there can be very little doubt that the applicant as well as every body else concerned knew that the ghee was adulterated. The Act was passed for the public welfare and it is only by a thorough working of it that the public will benefit from it. These persons who sell ghee are generally well aware, of the fact that it is adulterated. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the sentence. The application is accordingly dismissed.