JUDGMENT Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. The petitioner was prosecuted for selling adulterated mustard oil in case No. 294 C2 of 1967 T. R. 300/68 and for selling adulterated Haldi (turmeric) in case No. 293 C2 of 1967. The Trial court T.R.No.423/68 convicted him under section 16 (1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (here-in-after referred to as the Act) and in each case sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 125/- or, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six weeks more. Against the aforesaid orders of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred two appeals which were heard by the learned Sessions Judge of Monghyr. The learned Sessions Judge, while affirming the orders of two rigorous imprisonment for six months, and directed them to run concurrently. There is, however, no specific order regarding setting aside the sentences of fine. Against this order of the learned Session Judge, the petitioner has filed these two revision applications, which have been heard together and this judgment will govern them both. 2. The prosecution case, in short, was that the petitioner has a grocery shop within Jamalpur municipality. On the 30th April, 1965, the sanitary Inspector, who had also been appointed as the Food Inspector under the Act, went to the shop of the petitioner and, after due notice to him, purchased 44 chataks of mustard oil and 3 chataks of Haldi. The sample of mustard oil was divided into three parts. One phial was given to the petitioner, the other was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was retained by the Food Inspector, Similarly, the sample of Haldi was divided into three parts. One phial was given to the petitioner, the other was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was kept by the Food Inspector. The public Analyst reported that the mustard oil and the Haldi were adultered. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, after obtaining the necessary sanction under the Act, prosecution reports were submitted against the petitioner, and, in due course, the petitioner was put on trial and convicted and sentenced as stated above. 3. The defence of the petitioner was a simple denial of the charges levelled against him. 4. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, after obtaining the necessary sanction under the Act, prosecution reports were submitted against the petitioner, and, in due course, the petitioner was put on trial and convicted and sentenced as stated above. 3. The defence of the petitioner was a simple denial of the charges levelled against him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Food Inspector (p. W. 3) had collected only 3 chataks of Raldi and 4 chataks of mustard oil which he had divided into three parts. As such, he had sent only one chatak of Haldi and less than 11/2 chataks of mustard oil to the public Analyst, which, in grams would be 58 grams of Haldi and 80 grams of mustard oil. During the course of arguments there was some controversy as to whether the Food Inspector had collected only 4 chataks of mustard oil as sample or 41/2 chataks. In the judgment of the trial Court. however, it is mentioned as 41/2 chataks. If it was only 4 chataks, then, in grams, it would be about 80 grams. Learned counsel contended that, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Food Inspector collected the samples in contravention of rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). Rule 22 provides the quantity of samples to be sent to the Public Analyst or Director, as the case may be, for analysis. There is a list in that rule. In the first column the articles of food are mentioned and in the other column the approximate quantity to be supplied is mentioned. The relevant entries of that rule are as follows: "Articles of food. Approximate quantity to be supplied. .. .. .. .. 6. Edible oil 125 grams' .. .. .. .. 17. Spices 150 grams According to this rule, in case of edible oil, a sample of 125 grams is to be sent to the Public Analyst. Likewise in case of spices, which will include Haldi, 150 grams are to be sent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the Food Inspector sent the samples in contravention of the said rule, it was open to the petitioner to challenge the report of the Public Analyst and no conviction can be sustained on the basis of such report. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the Food Inspector sent the samples in contravention of the said rule, it was open to the petitioner to challenge the report of the Public Analyst and no conviction can be sustained on the basis of such report. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the judgment of the appellate Court where this point was considered, as urged on behalf of the petitioner. The Court below has dealt with this aspect in paragraphs 10 to 13 of the judgment, and held that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner simply because less then the prescribed quantity was sent for analysis. From those paragraphs it appears that there was a controversy over the quantity of mustard oil-whether 88 grams or 80 grams were sent. But, in any case, not more than 88 grams were sent; it might be only to grams although the rule prescribes 125 grams. In case of Haldi, even though the rule prescribes 150 grams, a sample of only 58 grams was sent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajaldas C. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra.1 In that case the appellant before the Supreme Court was a grocer and used to sell compounded asafoetida. The Food Inspector had taken 300 grams of the said compounded asafoetida and had divided it into three parts. He sent only 100 grams to the Public Analyst for analysis. According to the chart given in the aforesaid rule 22 of the Rules, he should have sent 200 grams. The defence of the appellant was that he had purchased the article from the duly licensed manufacturer in the same condition. Their Lordships held that the defence was not available to the appellant in absence of a written warranty in the prescribed form from the' licensed manufacturer/distributor in question as required by section 19 (2) (1) and (11) of the Act: but the contention of the appellant regarding the non-compliance with the aforesaid rule 22 was, however, accepted in the following words :- "17. The appellant also contended that samples were not taken in accordance with the provisions, of the Act, and the rules there under. The appellant also contended that samples were not taken in accordance with the provisions, of the Act, and the rules there under. 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." While allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed :- "19. The appeals are accepted in view of the fact that the High Court was not correct in convicting the appellant on analysis which was not in compliance with the provisions of the statute." From the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court it appears that, if the quantity of the sample sent to the Public Analyst is not in accordance with the requirement of the Rules, it can be held that injustice has been caused to the accused, apart from the fact that infraction of the rule itself occurred. In rule 22, column 2 mentions "Approximate quantity to be supplied". The word 'approximate', according to Shorter Oxford Dictionary, third edition, means 'very near'. Perhaps, it was in this context that their Lordships observed in paragraph 17 "Shortage in quantity for analysis is not permitted by the statute." The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the Supreme Court case. It cannot be said that 58 grams of Haldi will be deemed to be 'approximate' to 150 grams, required by rule 22. Similarly, 88 grams or 80 grams will not be deemed to be 'approximate' to 125 grams of mustard oil, required by that rule. In that view of the matter, it has to be held that the orders of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner are bad in law and fit to be set aside. 6. In the result the two revision applications are allowed, the orders of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted. S. Ali Ahmad, J. : I agree. Application allowed.