JUDGMENT 1. - Amba Lal Food Inspector, inspector, inspected the shop of Sunderdass respondent on September 18, 1975 at about 10 45 a.m. The shop of the respondent is situated in the main market of Sojat. It was found that on the shop of the respondent chillies powder was stored for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 450 grams of chillies powder from the respondent for Rs. 7.55 after giving a notice in Form VI to the respondent to have the same analysed by Public Analyst. This 450 grams of chillies powder was divided in three equal parts and filled in three clean and dry bottles. The bottles were wrapped around by paper and were sealed. One sample of chillies powder was given to the respondent. Out of the remaining two samples, one was sent to the Public Analyst, Jodhpur for chemical analysis. The Public Analyst found that the sample was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standards of purity. After obtaining the permission of the Administrator, Municipal Board, Sojat, the Food Inspector filed a complaint against the respondent for offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (here in after, for short, the Act). 2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali (Camp: Sojat) found the respondent guilty under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, further sentence of two months' rigorous imprisonment was also passed. It appears from the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that three contentions were advanced on behalf of the respondent before him. The first contention was that the Food Inspector did not comply with the formalities required to be complied with by Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (here in after, for short, the Rules). The Chief Judicial Magistrate held that no cross-examination on the point raised was made on behalf of the respondent with the Food Inspector and no defence evidence on this aspect was adduced. On the basis of evidence on record, the Chief Judicial Magistrate drew presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the formalities required by Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules were duly complied with. On the basis of evidence on record, the Chief Judicial Magistrate drew presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the formalities required by Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules were duly complied with. The next argument advanced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate was that the chillies powder did not fall within the category of spices and fell within the category of condiments and, therefore, the quantity of sample to be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis should have been 200 grams and not only 150 grams as had been sent by the Food Inspector. The Chief Judicial Magistrate relying upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kalid is Damodardas v. State of Gujarat 1976 FAC 117 held that chillies powder fell under the category of spices and, therefore, sample containing the quantity of 150 grams of chillies powder sent to the Public Analyst was not in accordance with Rule 22 of the Rules. The Chief Judicial Magistrate further observed that even if the chillies powder was a condiment it cannot be said that it does not fall within the category of spices. Last contention advanced on behalf of the respondent was that he had purchased the chillies powder from M/s. Rajendra & Company only few days before the Food Inspector took the sample and that he did not make any adulteration in the article of food. This fact was held not to have been established and it was held that the contention has no force in it when the Public Analyst found that the chillies powder did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. 3. The respondent filed Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1977 before the Sessions Judge, Pali who allowed his appeal on April 7, 1977 and acquitted the respondent of the offence The Sessions Judge held that chillies powder fell in the category of condiments and not spices, on the basis of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Vithal Kalappa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra 1976 FAJ 325 , that what Delhi High Court reported in 1977 Cr.LJ 92 and that of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 428 of 1975 (Ladu Ram v. State) decided on 22nd December, 1976 . The Sessions Judge further held that quantity of sample of chillies powder to be sent to Public Analyst was 200 grams and admittedly the quantity sent was only 150 grams and as such Rule 22 of the Rules was violated. According to the Sessions Judge, the quantity of the sample to be sent to the Public Analyst could not be less than 200 grams and the respondent could not be held guilty of the offence when the quantity of sample sent was only 150 grams. He, therefore, acquitted the respondent. 4. The State of Rajasthan has, by leave, filed this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. 5. It was contended by Mr. S.K. Mathur, Public Prosecutor that the Sessions Judge was wrong in holding that chillies powder did not fall within the category of spices and he was further wrong in holding that because of sending of 150 grams of chillies powder to the Public Analyst for chemical analysis, Rule 22 had been contravened. It was urged that even if there was minor variation in the quantity of chillies powder sent to the Public Analyst, the right authority to say whether proper analysis could be made on the basis of the quantity received or not was the Public Analyst and not the respondent. It was contended that Rule 22 of the Rules was directory in nature. 6. The same matter had come for consideration before this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal 1979 Cr.LR (Raj.) 263 . His Lordship S.K. Mal Lodha, J. following the decisions of Bombay and Delhi High Courts already referred to above held that chillies powder was not a spice but was a condiment and, therefore, it fell under item No. 23 of Rule 22 and not under item No. 17 of Rule 22. Following the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Alassery Mohammed AIR 1978 SC 933 , it was held that Rule 22 of Rules was directory and not mandatory. It was observed that though chillies powder is a condiment and only 150 grams of that was sent to the Public Analyst, still as the Public Analyst was able to form the opinion, Rule 22 was substantially complied with. It was observed that though chillies powder is a condiment and only 150 grams of that was sent to the Public Analyst, still as the Public Analyst was able to form the opinion, Rule 22 was substantially complied with. The Sessions Judge, Pali had based his judgment regarding the interpretation of Rule 22 of the Rules on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajaldas G. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 SC 189 . But the Supreme Court led overruled the decision in Rajaldas G. Pamnani's case by their latter decision in State of Kerala v. Alassarry Mohammed, AIR 1978 SC 933 . Their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Allassarry Mohammed's case laid down as under: On a careful consideration of the matter, we have come to the conclusion, and we say so with great respect, that Pamnani's case on the point at issue before us was not correctly decided. It was held that Rule 22 of the Rules was directory and not the mandatory. The question of non-compliance with the Rules comes in when the quantity supplied is not in close vicinity of the quantity specified and is appreciably below it. Even so if the quantity supplied is sufficient to enable the Public Analyst to do his duty of making a correct analysis, it should be inferred that the Rule has been substantially complied with and the purpose of the Rule has been achieved. 7. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in their decision in Mangal Das Raghavaji Ruperal v. State of Maharashtra 1965 (2) SCR 894 that the Court could legally act solely on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst. It is quite clear from the report of the Public Analyst Ex. P/5 that non-volatile either extract in the sample was found .23% more than the prescribed standard and crude fibre was found 5. 46% more. The sample was thus adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. 8. In The Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation v. Chera Kappial Gopalan and Anr., AIR 1971 SC 1725 it was held that where article of food was found adulterated, it was not necessary to establish that the accused was a dealer. There is no doubt that the respondent had stored for sale and sold adulterated chillies powder. 8. In The Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation v. Chera Kappial Gopalan and Anr., AIR 1971 SC 1725 it was held that where article of food was found adulterated, it was not necessary to establish that the accused was a dealer. There is no doubt that the respondent had stored for sale and sold adulterated chillies powder. In Sherif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 1917 , in the report of the Public Analyst it was not mentioned that powdered chillies was injurious to human life. It was held that it does not mean that it is non-injurious. The respondent was, therefore, clearly guilty for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act. 9. Lastly the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the offence was committed 12 years back and the respondent was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Pali more than 10 years back and it would not there fore, serve any purpose to send the respondent to jail after 10 years and more so when adulteration was marginal and the respondent was petty dealer. It may be stated that the offence was committed before the amendment of the Act by amending Act No. 34 of 976. Before the Act was amended by the said amending Act, the Court had power for any adequate and sufficient reason to be mentioned in the judgment, to impose sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or of fine of less then Rs. 1000/- or both imprisonment for a term of less than six months or of fine of less than Rs. 1000/-. Looking to the fact that the offence was committed more than 12 years back and the respondent bas been acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Pali more than 10 years back, it would not be proper to send the respondent to jail after such a lapse of time. In our view imposing a fine of Rs. 1000/- on respondent would meet the ends of justice. 10. We, therefore, allow this appeal of the State, set aside the acquittal of the respondent made by the Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated April 7, 1977 and hold the respondent guilty for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act and impose a fine of Rs. 1000/- on the respondent. 10. We, therefore, allow this appeal of the State, set aside the acquittal of the respondent made by the Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated April 7, 1977 and hold the respondent guilty for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act and impose a fine of Rs. 1000/- on the respondent. The respondent shall deposit the amount of fine in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali within two months of the judgment. In default of payment of fine as aforesaid, the respondent will undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.Appeal allowed. *******