JUDGMENT - B.M. SAPRE, J.:---The two petitioners have been convicted by the judicial Magistrate, First class, Ashti, for an offence under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as " the Act, and each of them has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. Their appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhir. Hence, they have come up in revision. Petitioner No. 1 Narayandas is the father and petitioner No. 2 Kantilal is the son. Narayandas owns a grocery shop styled as M/s. Narayandas Motilal Nehar situate at Amalner, Taluka Patoda, District Bhir. Both the petitioners are conducting the said shop. Food Inspector Patankar (P.W. 1), visited the shop of the petitioners on 14th February, 1974 accompanied by two panchas Suryakant Bedre (P.W. 2), and Namdeo Shevante (P.W. 3). Another Food Inspector Patil (P.W. 4) had also accompanied Patankar. Kantilal was present at the shop. After disclosing his indentity, Patankar asked Kantilal to sell him 450 gms of coriander whole, as he wanted to send the article to the Public Analyst as it was suspected to be adulterated. After going through the necessary formalities, a packet of 150 gms. of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst. On receiving his report that the sample was adulterated, inasmuch as it contained 18-20 percent damaged grains, 5-6 percent stalk, stems etc. and 8-9 percent stones, clay, etc. while the permissible limit of extraneous matter was 8 percent, the petitioners were prosecuted. The main submission of Mr. Chitnis for the petitioners is that the petitioners conviction and the sentence imposed on them are liable to be set aside, inasmuch as the report of the Public Analyst, which is the basis of their conviction, could not be accepted in evidence. Admittedly, the quantity of coriander whole sent to the Public Analyst was 150 gms. Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, hereinafter referred to as " the Rules", lays down the quantity of same of food to be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. Item No. 17 mentions that if the article of food is spices, the approximate quantity required to be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis is 150 gms. Item No. 17 mentions that if the article of food is spices, the approximate quantity required to be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis is 150 gms. The residuary Item No. 37 is in respect of food not specified in the other items and if an article of Food falls under this residuary item, the quantity required to be sent to the Public Analyst is 200 gms. According to Mr. Chitnis, coriander whole is not spices and as it cannot fall under any other item, it must fall under the residuary Item No. 37. If this be so, the quantity required to be sent to the Public Analyst was 200 gms. In the present case, the quantity sent was only 150 gms. It was held in (Rajaldas G. Pamanani v. State of Maharashtra)1, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 189 that the non compliance with the quantity to be supplied to the Public Analyst causes not only infraction of the provisions of Rule 22 but also injustice. The quantities mentioned in Rule 22 are required for correct analysis and shortage in quantity for analysis is not permitted by the statute. In support of his contention the coriander (Dhania) is not spices, Mr. Chitnis has relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the (State of Orissa v. D. Sahu Sons)2, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1561. There, the question arose under the Central Sales Tax Act (1956), sections 14(vi) and 15 , and the question was whether Dhania (coriander seed) was oil seeds. An argument was advanced on behalf of the appellant in that case that the articles in question (which included Dhania or coriander seed) are spices to all intents and purposes and not oil seeds. (Emphasis supplied). This argument that Dhania (coriander seed) is spices to all intents and purposes was repelled by the Supreme Court. It is true that the Court was considering the question under certain provisions of the Sales Tax Act but the fact remains that the submission on behalf of the appellant was that Dhania (coriander seed) was a spice to all intents and purposes and this argument was not accepted. Support can thus be held from the above decision of the Supreme Court that coriander cannot be a spice. It is true that in Appendix B of the Rules the heading A.05 is spices and condiments and coriander (Dhania) whole falls under this heading at serial No. A.05.08. Support can thus be held from the above decision of the Supreme Court that coriander cannot be a spice. It is true that in Appendix B of the Rules the heading A.05 is spices and condiments and coriander (Dhania) whole falls under this heading at serial No. A.05.08. But merely because it so falls, it cannot be said that coriander (Dhania) whole is spices even for the purposes of the Rules and the Act. Chilly powder also falls under the heading spices and condiments at serial No. A.05 05.01. Similarly, turmeric powder also falls under the heading spices and condiments and is at serial No. A.5.20.01. But this Court has held that both these articles of food are not spices within item No. 17 in Rule 22. See (Vithal Kallappa Shetty V. State of Maharashtra)3, 1975 U.C.R. (Bom.) 350. The learned Public Prosecutor was not able to show any positive authority for the view that coriander (Dhania) whole would be spices. As against this, the authority of the Supreme Court referred to above would show that coriander (Dhania) cannot be spices. Merely because the article occurs under the heading spices and conditments at serial No. A.05 it cannot mean that it is spices. There is no dispute that if the article does not fall under Item No. 17, it must fall under the residuary Item No. 37, Food (not specified). In that case, the quantity required to be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis was 200 gms. and as this quantity was not sent, on the authority of the Supreme Court in Rajaldas G. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra, the report of the Public Analyst could not be made the basis for the conviction of the petitioners. In the result, the application in revision is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the two petitioners is set aside and they are both acquitted. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to them. Their bail bonds are cancelled. The Rule is made absolute. -----