JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal against the acquittal is after grant of leave by this Court on 13.1.76 against the judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara, dated 16.8.77 whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the charge u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The Food Inspector Sardar Singh visited the shop of accused-respondent Babulal on 4.7.74 at 7.00 P.M.and obtained 450 Gms. of chilly powder as sample for analysis, which was later on sent to the Public Analyst who found the same to be adulterated as it did not contain the prescribed standard under the rules. Roughly 2 ash content was more than the prescribed limit. The Food Inspector after necessary sanction submitted a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara, who after trial acquitted the accused relying on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rajaldas Gurunamal Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra, 1975 F.A.J. 146 It is against this order of acquittal that the leave application was filed and the appeal has come up after grant of leave. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court was in error in acquitting the accused on the ground that lesser quantity of sample was obtained and proper analysis could not be done. He has relied upon Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Das Raj and another, 1958 F.A.J. 156 a Division Bench Judgment of Delhi High Court wherein Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 was held to be directed. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Nagar Sawasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra v. Mohammed Rafiq, 1985 F.A.J. 198 where to also the similar view was taken. 4. I have perused the aforesaid two authorities. The question is whether the order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate warrants an interference on the strength of the authorities cited above. The order of the learned Magistrate was based on the three decisions also cited before me, namely, Jayantilal Kunvarji and Kunvarji Kanji v. State of Maharashtra, 1976 F.A.C. 137 Hans Raj v. The State, 1976 F.A.C. 168 and Rajaldas's case (supra). The first two cases are identical to the facts of the present case and are in the matter of chilly powder as is in the present case. The first two cases are identical to the facts of the present case and are in the matter of chilly powder as is in the present case. The third case relied upon the learned Magistrate was that of their Lordships of the Supreme Court by wherein Rule 22 was considered and their Lordships after considering rule 22 held as under:- " 17. The appellant also contended that samples were not taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules thereunder. Rule 22 states that in the case of asafoetida the approximate quantity to be supplied for analysis is 100 grams and in the case of compounded asafoetida 200 grams. The public analyst did not have the quantities mentioned in Rules for analysis. The appellant rightly contends that non compliance with the quantity to be supplied caused not only infraction of the provisions but also injustice. The quantities mentioned are required for correct analysis. Shortage in quantity for analysts is not permitted by the statute." 5. As such it cannot be said that the acquittal recorded by the trial court deserves to be reversed because there is a change of opinion later on. It is well settled that the courts have to be slow in reversing the orders of acquittal and much less when the order of acquittal was based on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the judgment was either erroneous or was perverse so as to warrant an acquittal. 6. I do not find any substance in this appeal and dismiss the same.Appeal dismissed. *******