Thereafter the appellant obtained special leave of this Court and hence this appeal.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 2 9 1976 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.
The High Court how ever, on the basis of the decision of this Court in the case of Rajal Das Guru Namal Pamanani v. State of Maharashtra held that as the quantity of the sample sent to the Public Analyst was below 500 gms.,
v. Alassary Mohammed etc.
the amendment by Rule 22B was number really an amendment in the strict sense of the term but merely a clarification of what was really intended by the original Rule 22.
329 of 1979.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
2000/ as modified by the Sessions Judge in appeal.
The High Court accepted all the facts proved in the case and found that the companyfectionary drops sold by the accused to the Food Inspector by way of sample companytained companyl tar dye.
The High Court however, ac quitted the respondents only on the ground that under Rule 22 as it stood before the amendment required that the minimum quantity of 500 gms.
Rev. Appln.
310/75.
C. Bhandare and M. N. Shroff for Respondent No.
N. Ganpule for the appellant.
The respondents were companyvicted under s. 16 1 a i of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and fined Rs.
N. Keshwani and Ramesh N. Keshwani for the Respondents 1 2.
This rule was subsequently amended by Rule 22B. In fact as pointed by this Court in the case of State of Kerala etc.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Bombay High Court acquitting the respondents of the charge under s. 16 1 a i of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
of the sample seized should be sent for analysis.
therefore, the respondents were entitled to an acquittal on this ground alone.
