G. D. DUBEY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by Nagar Swasth Adhikari, Agra against the judgment and order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, acquitting the respondent of the charges u/ss. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as act ). ( 2 ) 450 grams of Dalchini is said to have been taken as a sample from the shop of the accused-respondent. The sample was divided into three equal parts. Each part was sealed and labelled in separate container. One part was given to respondent and second was sent to Public Analyst, Lucknow. The public analyst reported that Dalchini sample was adulterated. A complaint was filed against the respondent. At the trial the respondent had pleaded not guilty of the charges. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate had acquitted the respondent on solitary technical ground that Rule 22 of Rules under the Act was not complied. According to the lower court the Dalchini was not a spice. It was a condiment and, therefore, fell under Item 37 of Rule 22. According to this item and under the Rule 22, 200 grams of the sample should have been supplied to the public analyst. It was held by the learned Magistrate that as 600 grams of sample was not taken the whole prosecution was bad. Consequently the learned Magistrate had acquitted the respondent. ( 3 ) NOTICE was sent to the respondent. It was served personally. He has not appeared to contest the case. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant states that the view taken by the learned Magistrate was not in accordance with the various pronouncement of this Court which had followed the view taken by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Alaserry Mohammad (1978) 1 FAC 145. ( 5 ) I have gone through the judgment of the lower Court. The Magistrate had relied upon the case of Rajal Das G. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra. The learned Magistrate had not given citation of book in his judgment. It appears that the learned Magistrate had referred to the case reported in 1975 FAC 1. This case was considered by a Full Bench of the Honble Supreme Court consisting of Five Honble Judges. The view expressed in Rajal Dass case was not approved. The learned Magistrate had not given citation of book in his judgment. It appears that the learned Magistrate had referred to the case reported in 1975 FAC 1. This case was considered by a Full Bench of the Honble Supreme Court consisting of Five Honble Judges. The view expressed in Rajal Dass case was not approved. It was held in the State of Keralas case that the Rule 22 is only directory in nature and not mandatory. The Supreme Court had cautioned that this should not give licence to Food Inspector to take a lesser quantity of sample. It was observed that if the Food Inspector do not comply the rule then the department should take adequate action. It was held in this case that if the public analyst does not feel any difficulty in analysing the food material then simply because a lesser quantity was sent for analysis, the case should not fail. If the object of getting the food analysis of public analyst is frustrated by sending a lesser quantity then only the accused may get the benefit of non-compliance of Rule 22. The Honble Supreme Court observed in State of Keralas case, "but if the object is not frustrated and is squarely and justifiably achieved without any shadow of doubt, then it will endanger public health to acquit offenders on technical grounds which have no substance. " ( 6 ) A Bench of this court had followed (1978)1 FAC 145 and held that the acquittal of the accused on technical ground of non-compliance of Rule 22 was bad. This case in N. S. A. Agra v. Mohd. Rafiq: (1984) 2 PFAC 235: (1984 All LJ 1209 ). ( 7 ) IN view of what has been said above I find that the view taken by the lower court was erroneous. Consequently the appeal is allowed. The order passed by he lower court is set aside. The case is remanded to the C. J. M. , Agra for decision of the case either by himself or by transferring it to some other competent court which he deems proper. No further evidence shall be permitted. Appeal allowed. .