JUDGMENT V.N. Varma, J. - This revision is directed against an order dated 15.9.1973 passed by passed Sessions Judge Kanpur confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant under section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The applicant lives in house No. 12/908 Gwal Toli, police station Toli, Kanpur. In his house, he runs a general merchandise shop also. On 15-11-1971, Sri G.C. Gupta, Food Inspector, visited the shop of the applicant and found him selling or exposing for sale Arhar-ki-Dal. He purchased 600 gms. of the same for Rs. 1.08 P. and obtained a receipt for it. The sample of Dal was divided in three equal parts and kept and sealed in three different bottles in accordance with law. He sent one sealed bottle to the Public Analyst for test and report. The Public Analyst found the sample of Dal coloured with a coaltar dye (metalin yellow), the use of which is not permitted in food stuffs. As the Dal in question was found to be adulterated, the applicant was sent up to stand his trial under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. The applicant pleaded not guilty and denied to have exposed any Dal for sale when the Food Inspector visited his house. He also denied to have sold any Dal by way of sample to the Food Inspector. According to him, the Food Inspector forcibly took some Dal from him without paying any price. Further, he also denied that the Dal in question was coloured with any prohibited dye. 4. The learned Magistrate found the prosecution case proved against the applicant, and, he, therefore, convicted him under section 7/16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to suffer a further term of four months R.I. The applicant went up in appeal against his conviction but in vain. Aggrieved, he has come up in revision to this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and have also gone through the record of the case. I find that even if the the prosecution case is taken to be absolutely correct, it is not possible to record a conviction against the applicant. The Food Inspector had purchased 600 gms. of Arhar-ki-Dal from the applicant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and have also gone through the record of the case. I find that even if the the prosecution case is taken to be absolutely correct, it is not possible to record a conviction against the applicant. The Food Inspector had purchased 600 gms. of Arhar-ki-Dal from the applicant. The Dal so purchased was divided in three equal parts and each part was kept in a sealed bottle. One of the bottles containing 200 gms. of Dal was sent to the Public Analyst for test and report. According to the applicant, the sample taken by the Food Inspector was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder and as such his conviction was bad in law. Rule 22 stated that in the case of pulses the approximate quantity to be supplied for analysis is 250 gms. In this case, as stated above, only 200 gms. Dal had been sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. This means that the Public Analyst did not have the prescribed quantity mentioned in the Rules for analysis. The non-compliance with the quantity to be supplied caused not only infraction of the provisions but also injustice. The shortage in quantity for analysis is not permitted by the statute. This very view was taken by the Supreme Court in Rajaldas v. State of Maharashtra 1975 (I) F.A.C. 1. In circumstances similar to what we find in this case, the Supreme Court had acquitted the accused. The applicant also therefore, deserves to be acquitted. 6. In the result, I allow this revision and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the applicant. He is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged and he need not surrender to them. Any 'fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the applicant.