Lakshmana Rao, J.
1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against an appellate order of acquittal and the question for determination is whether the accused are guilty of the offence tinder Section 5(1)(d) read with Rules 24, 28 and 29 framed under Section 20(2) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act. The accused are the Secretary and an Accountant of the Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society, Ltd., and the undisputed facts are that on 22nd August, 1936, the Sanitary Inspector of the Saidapet Municipality demanded a sample of butter from the Saidapet branch of the Society under Section 14 of the Act. The Accountant gave the sample and received the value, and the butter was on test found to be adulterated. The accused were prosecuted under Section 5(1)(a) and (d) read with Rules 24, 28 and 29 framed under Section 20(2) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, and the trial Court convicted them under Section 5(1)(d) read with Rules 24, 28 and 29 of the rules framed under Section 20(2) for selling the butter to the Sanitary Inspector. The conviction was set aside by the appellate Court on the ground that in the case of a Society registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act there can in law be only a distribution of the articles among the members and no sale, but it is unnecessary to consider this question as on the facts themselves the order of acquittal is right. The supply of sample to the Sanitary Inspector under Section 14 of the Act is not a sale nor can the Secretary of the Society or the Accountant of the Saidapet Branch be said to offer the butter for sale. They cannot therefore be convicted under Section 5(1)(d) read with Rules 24, 28 and 29 framed under Section 20(2) of the Act, and the order of acquittal must stand. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.