G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal of Khem Chand, the respondent, who was prosecuted for the sale of the adultereted 'dal'. The acquittal is based on number of grounds including that, the sample sent was not of sufficient in quantity as it was 50 gm. less according to the requirement under S. 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in R. C. Pamnani vs. State of Maharashtra (I ). Para 17 of it reads as under - "the appellant also contested that samples were not taken in accordance With the provisions of the Act and the rules there under. Rules 22 stated that in the case of as afoetida the approximate quantity to be supplied for analysis is 100 gram, and in the case of non-conded asafoetida 200gms. The Public Analyst did not have the quantities mentioned in the Rules for analysis. The appellant rightly contends that non compliance with the quantity to be supplied caused not only infraction of the provisions but also injustice. The quantities mentioned are required for correct analysis. Shortage in quantity. . . for analysis is not permitted by the statute. "
(2.) SHRI S. B. Mathur, learned Public Prosecutor rightly pointed out that this has been held to be no longer good law, according to the later decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. Allassory Mohd. (2) wherein it has been held that Rule 22 and 22-B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules are directory and not mandatary. It was also held that the analyst report is not invalid. The principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this decision of State of Kerala vs. Allessory Mohd. (supra) over ruled the earlier decision in R. G. Pannani vs. State of Maharastra (supra ). Thus, there is no doubt that the acquittal of the accused so far as it is heard on the sending of less quantity than the prescribed quantity of the sample is erroneous. However, Shri Biri Singh pointed out that even if the acquittal is based on erroneous ground as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the judgment (supra) the acquittal need not be interferred with now in this appeal. In para 19 their Lordships observed as under: - "for the reasons stated above we dispose of these appeals by merely laying down the correct proposition of law but did not make any consequential orders setting aside the acquittal of any of the respondents or sending back the cases to the courts below or convicting any of them by an order of this Court. " In view of the above, and because there are other reasons for acquittal also which 1 need not go into now, the appeal is partially accepted only to the extent of laying down of the correct law. However, acquittal of the accused is not interfered with. . ;