JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This appeal is directed against order dated 18-12-77 in case No. 1455 of 76 by Sri Yashpal Lukaria, Munsif Magistrate 1st Class Agra who acquitted respondent Mool Chandra and Dhurey Lal under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. It appears that Sri Ambika Prasad, P.W. 1 found the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 selling 'am ka rus ka khata mitha papar' on 8-9-74 at about 11 A.M. in Adhiyapal Ram Ratan Marg near Piau Chauraha, St. Johas College. M.G. Road crossing Agra. Food Inspector purchased 600 gms. Papar for a sum of Rs. 6/- after disclosing his identity vide notice Exh. Ka. 1. Receipt is Exh. Ka 2 which was execute by appellant in presence of witnesses Bibu Lal, Mingal Sen, Bhurey Lal etc. The sample was divided in three equal portions and one part thereof in accordance with rules was sent to U.P. Public Analyst for analysis vide Exh. Ka 4. Public Analyst reported that the sample was coloured with coaltar dye namely orange 11 colour Index No. 15510 the use of which was not permitted On receipt of this report the appellant was informed through registered post and necessary sanction for prosecution Exh. Ka 6 was procured from Dr. Narendra Nath; complaint was filed. Appellant in his statement denied the aforesaid allegations and alleged that although the Papar was purchased but its price was not paid; he purchased the Papar from market. He was not a dealer in Papars. Prosecution examined Food Inspector Sri Ambika Pd. P.W. 1 and Babu Lal P.W. 2 in support of their story and filed seven documents proved by Food Inspector Sri Ambika Prasad P.W. 1 in his statement. 3. One Lakshman Prasad was examined in defence to testify that respondents were vegetable sellers and did not deal in Papars. Learned trial Magistrate disbelieved the defence but found that as Food Inspector seized sample to the extent of 600 gms only so he did not comply with rule 22 of the Food Adulteration Rules under which at least 1500 gms. of papar must have been purchased to enable the Public Analyst to examine at least 500 gms. of Papar and so on the basis of decision of Supreme Court reported in Rajal Das v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1975 (I) FAC I he acquitted the respondents. 4. of papar must have been purchased to enable the Public Analyst to examine at least 500 gms. of Papar and so on the basis of decision of Supreme Court reported in Rajal Das v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1975 (I) FAC I he acquitted the respondents. 4. Nagar Swastha Adhikari of Nagar Mahapalika Agra has filed this appeal. 5. I have heard Sri P.N. Mehrotra learned counsel for appellant and Sri K.N. Dwivedi on behalf of State and Sri Tajpal Singh Advocate for respondents. 6. The only ground put forward by learned Magistrate for acquittal was that rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was mandatory and the respondents were acquitted simply for the contravention of that rule although prosecution succeeded in proving all the remaining facts of their case. 7. It appears that the authority relied upon by learned trial Magistrate was over-ruled in State of Kerala v. Alassarry Mohammad 1978 (1) FAC 145 which was followed in Ram Das Bhikhaji v. Sadanand and others 1979(II) FAC 215. It was pointed out in these authorities that rule 22 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was directory and not mandatory and its contravention could not justify the acquittal. In this view of the matter I find that the acquittal recorded by learned trial Magistrate cannot be allowed to stand. 8. Thus both the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 9. As regards the sentence it is obvious that the sample was seized on 8.8.74; respondents were acquitted on 18.2.77. So it shall be improper to send them to jail now although a serious view of economic offence has to be taken. The aforesaid authority Ram Das Bhikha Ji (supra) lays down that in such circumstances a sentence of fine will suffice. 10. In the result the appeal is allowed: the order of acquittal is set aside and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are convicted under section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and each of them is sentenced to Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) as fine payable within two months from today. In default of payment of fine each of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 shall undergo six months R.I. each. Let the record be sent to the court below expeditiously.