Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (Oral ). ( 1 ) THE present appeal has been field on behalf of the Director General of Health Services against an order of the Met. Mgt. , New Delhi dated 12. 4. 77. whereby he acquitted all the respondents u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ( the Act ). ( 2 ) THE respondents had been prosecuted on the ground that a sample of 300 gms. of asafoetida (Hing) was lifted from the shop of M/s. Nand Lal and Co. on 30. 3. 73 and one of the samples which was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis was found adulterated due to 20. 38 excess in total ash percent weight and 8. 84 excess in ash insoluble in dilute Hydrochloric Acid percent by weight. ( 3 ) THE respondents had denied adulteration and some of them like Bansi Dhar, Nand Lal, Vidya Sagar and Karam Narain had also pleaded that they were not incharge or responsible to the company for the conduct of its business and it was only Sunder Lal, from whom the sample was purchased, was looking after the affairs of the company. ( 4 ) IT, however, came out during trial that the food Inspector had purchased total quantity of 300 gms. which was divided into 3 parts, therefore, one sample was weighing about 100 gms. In the court, the other sam- ple was weighed and it was about 92 to 93 gms and, therefore, it was less than 100 gms as prescribed by Rules. The learned Mgte. on the short ground that since the sample drawn was less than the required quantity, acquitted the respondents. ( 4 ) IT is against this order that the appellants have come up in appeal and have submitted that mere small shortage in the sample would not vitiate the prosecution and the respondents were liable to be convicted. In this connection they brought to our notice a decision of the Supreme Court reported as State of Kerala Vs. Alaserry 1978 (1) F. A. C. 145. It is thus clear that in view of this decision, acquittal of respondent No. 6, M/s. Nand Lal and Co. and its partner Sunder Lal, respondent No. 1, was unwarranted. In this connection they brought to our notice a decision of the Supreme Court reported as State of Kerala Vs. Alaserry 1978 (1) F. A. C. 145. It is thus clear that in view of this decision, acquittal of respondent No. 6, M/s. Nand Lal and Co. and its partner Sunder Lal, respondent No. 1, was unwarranted. ( 6 ) SO far as other respondents, Bansi Dhar, Nand Lal, Vidya Sagar and Karam Narain are concerned, there is no evidence that they are incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business On this short ground the appeal against respondents 2,3,4, and 5 fails and is dismissed. ( 7 ) BUT so far as respondent No. 1, Sunder Lal and respondent No. 6, M/s. Nand Lal and Company, are concerned, they are liable to be convicted u/s 7 read with S. 16 of the Act. ( 8 ) IT will be noticed that there are lot of conflict of authorities and the Supreme Court itself in the case of Rajaldas Vs. State 1975 (1) F. A. C. I had taken the view that Rule 22 was mandatory and its violation resulted in injustice to the accused and hundreds of accused have been acquitted so far and the same view was followed by this Court in the case of MCD Vs. Attar Singh 1975 (2) F. A. C. 20 and Jagdish Parshad Vs. MCD 1976 (2) F. A. C. 196 and it was in this state of law that the respondents were acquitted by the learned Magistrate. ( 9 ) IN the case of State Vs. Alaserry 1978 (1) F. A. C: 145, the Supreme Court in the circumstances a! so enunciated the law and recorded conviction but did not pass sentences. In the present case also the acquittal was recorded as far back as 12. 4. 77 and in the circumstances we would also restrain ourselves from sentencing the accused.