K.C. Aggarwal, J. - (1.) On 31st May, 1972 the Food Inspector visited the confectionery shop of the applicants and found Chandra Prakash at the shop selling adulterated Boondi sweets. He obtained sample of Boondi against payment of price. The sample was divided into three parts and thereafter one of the parts was delivered to Chandra Prakash, the applicant no 1. The Public Analyst, to whom also one of the parts taken on 31st May, 1972 was sent, reported that the sample was coloured with un-permitted coal-tar dye. There, the Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, Meerut filed a complaint under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against Chandra Prakash and Jagdish Prasad.
(2.) The accused pleaded not guilty to be charge framed against them. The Magistrate found the applicants guilty of selling boondi coloured with prohibited dye and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 1000/- and rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was taken to the Sessions Judge. On 14-11-1973, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and service of the applicants were upheld and confirmed. Against the aforesaid order of the Sessions Judge, the present revision was filed.
(3.) One of the points that was raised in the revision was that as the quantity of 'Boondi' taken by the Food Inspector fell short of the requirement provided by rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, to conviction of the applicants was illegal. Entertaining a doubt, I referred the following question to a Division Bench : "Whether Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act applies to the present case, and the non-compliance of the same was fatal to the case of the prosecution - The Division Bench held that rule 22 had been substantially complied with and, as such, the proceedings could not be vitiated, because the quantity prescribed by rule 22 was not sent to the Public Analyst. In view of the answer given by the Division Bench to the question mentioned above, the first point relating to the applicability of rule 22 has no substance.;