JUDGMENT 1. 1. In this appeal against the acquittal of the accused. respondent of the under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the principal point which weighed with the lower court for the acquittal was that the Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was mandatory and the chillies which were purchased, were not for sale. 2. There is no doubt that Mahendra Prasad Jain, the Food Inspector, took the sample of chillies after giving notice and payment of Rs. 4.95 p.. from the respondent accused and that sample of chillies was found to be adulterated. 3. It is also common ground that R. 11 has got no relevancy in this appeal as the learned counsel for the accused has also submitted that there is no relevancy of R. 18. 4. So far as R. 22 is concerned, it is now settled law that R. 22 is directory and it has been held to be so in State of Kerala v. Allasery Mohd. ( AIR 1978 SC 933 ) by which earlier view taken in Rajal Das C. Pamanani v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1975 SC 189 ) was held to be no longer good law. 5. The trial court has held that in the present case the chillies were not meant for sale as the respondent-accused was preparing food and using the chillies in the vegetables (Sabzi). 6. In view of the above. the principles laid down in State of M. P. v. Udairam Oja (1977 Cr. L.J. 1807) and in M. C. Delhi v. Laxminarain ( AIR 1976 SC 621 ) would apply. 7. Shri S. B. Mathur, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused has admitted that he sold the chillies to the food inspector and, therefore, it is a case of sale. I am of the opinion that the admission of the accused has to be taken as a whole, sale along with other facts and circumstances of the case proved in the case. In this view of the matter, since the respondent was dealing in chilies, there cannot be any sale as per the decisions and the principles laid down in the cases referred to above. 8. So far as the effect of tine principles laid down about the Rule 22 being directory and not mandatory is concerned, I am of the opinion that later view should prevail. 8. So far as the effect of tine principles laid down about the Rule 22 being directory and not mandatory is concerned, I am of the opinion that later view should prevail. 9. The learned counsel has submitted that in State of Rajasthan v. Shankerlal ( 1984 (1) FAC 176 ) this Court has held that the acquittal should not be interfered with on account of change in interpretation of law. 10. In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Koku Bai (S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 171/78 decided on 24.4.86) . I have dealt with this aspect of the case in details and discussed all the judgments in Ramdas Bhikaji v. Sadanand & others ( AIR 1980 SC 126 ) , Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Prop. Singh Cheung, Company ( 1982 (1) SCC 487 ) , Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M s. New Kwality Sweet House ( AIR 1985 SC 329 ) . I have followed the principles in Ramdas Bhikaji v. Sadanand & others (supra) and levied the fine only reversing the acquittal in such cases. 11. Consequently, though the finding of acquittal based on R. 22 cannot be sustained but since there was no sale of chillies as the respondent (dealer) was not dealing with the chillies according to the details mentioned above, the acquittal cannot be interfered with. 12. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******