JUDGMENT V.P. Mathur, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed on 20-7-1977 passed by A.U. Khan, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. The learned Magistrate has directed acquittal of the respondent Raghubar Dayal who was charged under S. 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Mr. B.N. Upadhya has argued the appeal on behalf of the appellant and the learned position has been clarified and conceded by the learned counsel for the State. 3. The case was in respect of dal chana of which sample was obtained by the Food Inspector and was sent for analysis. The learned Magistrate has taken the view that the minimum quantity of 750 gms. of the sample ought to have been obtained for the purposes of analysis according to the rules. But the quantity which was taken in this case was only 600 gms. and was less than the required quantity and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajal Das G. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 SC 189 that when the sample is not obtained in accordance with the Rules there is no compliance of the Rules and it does not amount to infraction of the provisions of law but also amounts to injustice. In this view of law the learned Magistrate was of the view that there has been injustice in this case besides infraction of the rules and hence the accused was acquitted. 4. This case was reconsidered by the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and overruled vide the cases of the State of Kerala v. Alassery Mohd., State of Maharashtra v. Shantilal Kalidas Gujarati etc. and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Hansraj and another, AIR 1978 SC 933 reported in and the following points were enunciated: "that rule 22 is directory and not mandatory and further R. 22-B added to the Rules in 1977 laying down that the quantity of samples sent to the Analyst should be considered sufficient unless the Analyst himself or the Director reports to the contrary. It was further held that this new rule did not lay down a new law but simply had clarified the law already existing without seeking to amend it. It was further held that this new rule did not lay down a new law but simply had clarified the law already existing without seeking to amend it. (ii) If the quantity sent to the Public Analyst even though it is less than that prescribed is sufficient and enables the Public Analyst to make a correct analysis, then merely because the quantity sent was not in strict compliance with the Rule, will not result in nullification of the report not obliterate it so far as its evidentiary value is concerned. (iii) It, however, does not mean that it is open to the Food Inspector to violate the Rule. He should always be very cautious in complying with the Rules so far as the same is possible. He should not send a lesser quantity of sample than the one prescribed unless there is sufficient reason to do so. 5. This being the legal position now, the law relied upon by the learned Magistrate does not hold good. In view of the above now the case will have to go back by remand for retrial. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 20-7-1977 passed by Mr. A.U. Khan is set aside. The case is directed to go back by remand to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Agra who will either hear and dispose it of himself or may transfer it to some other Magistrate of competent jurisdiction.