JUDGMENT

UNTWALIA, J.:— In these appeals by special leave the common and important question of law which falls for our determination is whether the non-compliance with the requirement of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - hereinafter called the Rules, framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, vitiates the trial or the conviction recorded under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. In Rajal Das G. Pamanani v. State of Maharashtra (1975) 2 SCR 886 the conviction of the appellant was set aside on the ground:-

"The Public Analyst did not have the quantities mentioned in the 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 analysis is not permitted by the Statute." This larger Bench was constituted for examining the correctness of the above view.

2. We shall, at the outset, notice the scheme of the Act with reference to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Act was very substantially amend