JUDGMENT Mr. Kundan Singh, J. - This appeal has been preferred by Nagar Swasthya Adhikari against respondent Brij Kishan against the judgment and order of Sri A.H. Khan, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, dated 31-5-1977 whereby he acquitted the accused-respondent of the charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 25.9.1973 the Food Inspector found the accused respondent selling Hing at his shop in Mohall Raja Ki Mandi Agra. He purchased 105 grains of Hing from the respondent and divided it into three parts. First phial of the Hing was given to the accused-respondent, second was sent to the Public Analyst at Lucknow and the third was retained in the office of Nagar Swasthya Adhikari. The Public Analyst found the sample of Hing adulterated. 3. During the trial before the learned Magistrate, the Food Inspector could not be available for cross-examination as he had retired from service. The learned Magistrate found the infringement of the mandatory Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According to Rule 22, 300 grams of Hing ought to have been collected as sample but in the instant case only 105 grams of Hing was taken. The learned Magistrate held the rule aforesaid as mandatory in view of a case reported in 1975 A.C.C. page 167 (Rajal Dass Ji P. v. State of Maharashtra) and observed that noncompliance of that rule was fatal to the prosecution case and accordingly he acquitted the respondent of the charges levelled against him without affording opportunity of cross-examining the Food Inspector. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that Rule 22 is directory in nature and not mandatory and in support of his submission he relied upon the case M.C.D. v. Gurudayal Chandra reported in 1977 (1) F.A.C. 94, a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Atassery Mohammed, reported in 1978 (1) F.A.C. page 145. He also cited the case of N.S.A. v. Mohammed Rafeeq, reported in 1984 (Allahabad) F.A.C. page 235 and an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 1978 N.S.A. v. Gopal Dass, delivered on 7.1.91. He also cited the case of N.S.A. v. Mohammed Rafeeq, reported in 1984 (Allahabad) F.A.C. page 235 and an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 1978 N.S.A. v. Gopal Dass, delivered on 7.1.91. In all these cases it has been held that Rule 22 of the rules aforesaid is directory and not mandatory in nature. I have given my anxious consideration to the matter and I squarely agree with the view expressed in the aforesaid decisions that Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is directory and not mandatory. In the present case the Food Inspector has not been cross-examined and the ends of justice would meet adequately if that opportunity is given to the party concerned to cross-examine the witness. 5. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 31.5.1977 recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, is hereby set aside. The case is remainded back to him for deciding the same in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law either by himself or by any other Judicial Magistrate of competent jurisdiction. 6. The office is directed to sent down the record of the Court below forthwith.