It is one of those offences de scribed by Wright J in Sherras vs De Rutuzen which 'are not criminal in any real sense, but are acts which in the public interest are prohibited under a penalty '." [p. 26] Confirming the conviction, Lord Chancellor held: " . . sympathise as one may with a manu facturer with a reputation and record as excellent as that of the appellants, to con strue the Food & Drugs Act 1955 in a sense less strict than that which I have adopted would make a serious in road on the legisla tion for consumer protection which Parliament has adopted and by successive Acts extended, over a period, now, of more than a century . . " [ p.29] In Pyarali K. Tejani vs Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange, [1974] 2 SCR 154 this court held that what constitutes the offence under the 149 'Act ' is nothing more than the 'actus reus ' and mens rea need not separately be established.