JUDGMENT - N.B. NAIK, J.:---This is an appeal by the State under section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent-accused. 2. The respondent-accused is conducting a grocery shop at Omerga. On 20th February, 1974, Food Inspector Tiwari went to his shop and purchased 600 grams of peppermint for analysis, after following the prescribed procedure. He sent the sample to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst by his report Ex. 14 opined that the sample was adulterated under section 2(i)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as it was coloured with Auramine, Rhodamine B and Blue V. Rs. which are non permissible coal tar dyes. On these facts the accused was prosecuted. 3. The Court framed charge at Ex. 17 after recording the evidence of the Food Inspector. That charge is to the effect that the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by reason of his having committed the offence under sections 2(i)(j) and 7(i) of the Act. 4. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge and made an application for being treated leniently. 5. The learned Advocate for the accused also pleaded for leniency being shown to the accused on ground that it was a first offence of the accused and the accused is a small shop-keeper and he purchases these tablets from the wholesale merchant and he had sold the same with a marginal profit. It was also alleged that the accused is a poor person maintaining his family on the earnings of his shop. 6. The learned Magistrate after referring to these facts and after further observing that the evidence shows that the accused is not a party to the adulteration, evidently under the impression that he had a discretion in the matter of sentence after convicting the accused for the offence with which he was charged sentenced him to suffer S.I. till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 125/-. 7. The State being aggrieved by that order of sentence has filed this appeal. 8. Mr. 125/-. 7. The State being aggrieved by that order of sentence has filed this appeal. 8. Mr. Deshmukh for the State has submitted that since it was a case of adulteration as defined in section 2(i)(j) of the Act, the proviso to section 16 giving discretion to the Court to award a sentence less than the minimum was not attracted and, therefore, the learned, Magistrate was in error in awarding a lesser sentence. 9. Mr. Shahapurkar who is appointed to defend the accused submitted that the accused is entitled to an acquittal notwithstanding his plea of guilty to the charge inasmuch as in this case there is a breach of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He submitted that as required by Item No. 25 of Rule 22, the approximate quantity of the sample which the Food Inspector was required to sent was 300 gms. but on the showing of the Food Inspector himself he had purchased a total quantity of 600 gms. of sample and, therefore, he had sent only 200 gms. to the Public Analyst. This being a violation of Rule 22, submitted Mr. Shahapurkar, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in (Rajaldas G. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra)1, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 189, the conviction of the accused cannot be founded. 10. Mr. Shahapurkars submission based on the decision in Pamnans case cannot survive in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 216 and other companion appeals of 1977, decided by a Bench of five Judges in (State of Kerala v. Alaserry Mohammed)2, Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 1977, decided on 10-2-78(S.C.). In that case the Supreme Court consisting of a larger Bench of five Judges has held that Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is not mandatory but directory. In that case the Supreme Court consisting of a larger Bench of five Judges has held that Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is not mandatory but directory. In support of the same the Supreme Court apart from other considerations has taken into consideration the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which provides that in the event of the person from whom the sample is taken declines to accept one part of the sample offered to him by the Food Inspector the Food Inspector, shall send intimation to the Public Analyst of such refusal and thereupon the Public Analyst receiving a sample for analysis shall divide it into two parts and shall seal or fasten up one of those parts and shall cause it, either upon receipt of the sample or when he delivers his report, to be delivered to the Food Inspector who shall retain it for production in case legal proceedings are taken. This rule says that the quantity of the food grains mentioned in Rule 22 are two times the exact quantity which are normally required for analysis. That is the only way in which the quantity of articles mentioned in Rule 22 and the provisions of section 11(2) could be reconciled. In the instant case half of 300 grams would be 150 grams. Actually 200 grams were sent. Having regard therefore, to the provisions of section 11(2) and the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in The State of Kerala v. Alaserry Mohammed decided on 10th February, 1978, I find that there is no force in the submission of Mr. Shahapurkar that the conviction is vitiated. 11. Since no other point could be urged by Mr. Shahapurkar for assailing the conviction, it would appear that the accused was rightly convicted on a proper charge on his having pleaded guilty to the charge. That conviction was for an adulteration as defined under section 2(i)(j) of the Act. Since the proviso to section 16 is not attracted for such an offence, it would appear that the learned Magistrate was clearly in error in awarding a sentence less then the minimum. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the accused, the sentence is enhanced to R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. Since the proviso to section 16 is not attracted for such an offence, it would appear that the learned Magistrate was clearly in error in awarding a sentence less then the minimum. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the accused, the sentence is enhanced to R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which the accused shall suffer R.I. for one month. -----