JUDGMENT - S.M. HAJARNAVIS, J.:---This is an application for revision against the Appellate Judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, confirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner imposed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kirkee, under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called as the "Act"). The accused-petitioner is a hawker dealing in sale of Tur Dal in Kirkee Cantonment area. On 8th August, 1972 at about 10 a.m. he had kept his hand cart near Range Hill, Kirkee, and was selling articles including Tur Dal. At that lime, the Food Inspector Datar of Kirkee Cantonment Board (purchased 550 grains of Tur Dal for Rs. 1.05. Necessary formalities were completed. The Tur Dal was divided in three parts and the packets were sealed as prescribed by the Act. One packet was given to the petitioner and the other was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and report. The Public Analyst found, on analysis, that it contained non-permitted coaltar dye, viz. metanil yellow. The Tur Dal was, therefore, adulterated under section 2(i)(j) of the Act. After completing the formalities, the prosecution was launched against the petitioner. The Magistrate, after recording some evidence, framed a charge. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution led evidence in support of the charge. It was his defence that the Tur Dal was not adulterated. After taking all the evidence into consideration, the Magistrate found him guilty and convicted him under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. l000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence before the Sessions Court which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, who affirmed the finding recorded by the Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. It is against this judgment that the present application for revision has been filed. Mr. Ketkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained in view of the breach of the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act. It is against this judgment that the present application for revision has been filed. Mr. Ketkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained in view of the breach of the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act. He submitted that according to Rule 22, the quantity of the Tur Dal that should be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis is 250 grams, while in this particular case only 150 grams of Tur Dal was sent to the Public Analyst. The quantity that was sent to the Public Analyst was, therefore, short than the quantity prescribed by the rule. The report of the Public Analyst, in this particular case, cannot be the basis for the conviction of the accused. Mr. Ketkar relied on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in (Rajaldas G. Pamnani v. The state of Maharashtra)l, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 189 where it is observed : "The appellant also contended that samples were not taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules thereunder. Rule 22 states that in the case of asafoetida the approximate quantity to be supplied for analysis is 100 grams and in the case of compounded asafoetida 200 grams. 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." The submission of Shri Ketkar is well founded and deserves to be accepted. Naik J. has followed this Supreme Court decision in (Cri. Rev. Appli. No. 49 of 1975, decided on 13-8-75, Naik J. Bom.H.C.)2, and has taken the view that Rule 22 is mandatory and non-compliance of that rule vitiates the trial. That was also a case of Tur Dal. That being so, the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. In the result, the petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside. The fine, if paid, be refunded to the petitioner. The rule is made absolute. The bail bond stands cancelled. ------