Judgment B. D. Singh, J. 1. This application under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Khobhari Sah against his conviction under section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment plus a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine 11/2 months rigorous imprisonment imposed upon him for the offence under the said section by the trial court, on appeal his conviction and sentence were upheld by the appellate court. Hence this revision application. 2. The petitioner was convicted for possessing mustard oil for sale which was found adulterated. 3. In order to appreciate the points involved in this application, it will be necessary to state brieiiy the facts. On 30th of August, 1966, the Food Inspector strughan Prasad Singh (P. W.1) visited the Kirana shop of the petitioner and purchased 6 chattaks of mustard oh as sample from him out of the stock of oil which the petitioner was possessing for sale. A notice under Form VI prescribed under the Act was served upon the petitioner and the sample was purchased in the presence of two witnesses, namely, P. Ws.2 and 3. Thereafter P. W.1 put the oil purchased as sample in three phials and duly sealed the same in presence of those witnesses and the petitioner. Their signatures were also obtained on the notice aforesaid as also on the cash memo regarding the purchase of sample of the oil. The sealed phials were wrapped in Form VIII on which the signature of the petitioner was taken. One of the sealed phials was given to the petitioner and another was kept by P. W.1 and the third phial was sent to the public analyst from whom report was received after test. After obtaining sanction for prosecution of the petitioner the matter was reported to the Sub-divisional magistrate, Sadar, Muzaffarpur for necessary action against the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was put up for trial which led ultimately to his conviction and sentence as aforesaid. 4. After obtaining sanction for prosecution of the petitioner the matter was reported to the Sub-divisional magistrate, Sadar, Muzaffarpur for necessary action against the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was put up for trial which led ultimately to his conviction and sentence as aforesaid. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the conviction and the sentence imposed upon the petitioner was vitiated because : - (i) The provisions of rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule) have not been complied with, which according to learned counsel, are mandatory. (ii) Sanction as required under section 20 of the Act was not obtained by the authority who under the law had power to accord sanction. (iii) Rules 7, 10 (7) and 18 of the Rules were also not complied with. 5. It will be convenient to deal with point no. (i) first which, according to me, is the important point raised on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Rules were framed under section 23, of the Act by the Central Government after consultation with the Central committee for Food Standards. Relevant portion or rule 22 reads thus : -"the quantity of sample of food to be sent to the Public Analyst/ director for analysis shall be as specified below : -edible oils 125 grams. " 6. In the instant case, 115 grams of mustard oil only were supplied. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the requirement of requisite quantity of sample cannot be minimised. He has referred in this connection to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajaldas Guruanal Pamanani V/s. The Stile of maharashtra, (1975 BBCJ 43) where their Lordships were considering the quantity required for sample to be supplied under rule 22 of the Rules. In that case also, as it appears from paragraph 16 at page 46, the appellant had contended that the samples were not taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder. Rule 22 stated that in the case of Asafoetida the approximate quantity to be supplied for analysis was 100 grams and in the case of compound Asafoetida 200 grams. The public analyst did not have the quantities mentioned in the rule for analysis. Rule 22 stated that in the case of Asafoetida the approximate quantity to be supplied for analysis was 100 grams and in the case of compound Asafoetida 200 grams. The public analyst did not have the quantities mentioned in the rule for analysis. Their Lordships held that the appellant rightly contended that non-compliance with the quantity to be supplied caused not only infraction of the provision but also injustice. The quantities mentioned were required for correct analysis. Shortage in quantity for analysis was not permitted by the Statute and on the ground the appeal was allowed. In rule 22 the relevant portion of which I have quoted above, in the list provided under item no.20, for Asafoetida the approximate quantity to be supplied is 100 grams and for compounded Asafoetida 200 grams, which their Lordships were considering in that particular case. In my opinion, the observation made by their Lordships in the above case is applicable in the instant case also with equal force since their Lordships were considering rule 22 of the Rules in that case also and their Lordships have emphasised the importance of the quantity to be supplied as mentioned in Rule 22. In that view of the matter, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner under point no. (i) is well founded. Since he has succeeded on the basis of point no. (i), it is not necessary to deal with the other points raised on behalf of the petitioner.6. In the result, the application is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner are sot aside. The fine, if already realised, may be refunded. Application allowed.