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 amended by Act 34 of 1976. We will, however, for the purposes of these appeals be referring to the provisions of the Act as they stood before the said amendment. When an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated has been mentioned and defined in section 2 (1) of the Act. It is not seriously in dispute in any of these appeals that the articles of food sold to the Food Inspectors by the dealers were found to be adulterated within the meaning of one or the other sub-clause of clause (i) of section 2 of the Act. Of course, the type and extent of adulteration did vary. In some cases it was of a serious nature, in others it was of a technical nature and in some it was as a result of misunderstanding as to the nature of the article sold, as for example, whether it was Vanaspati or Ghee. As usual, according to Cl. (xii) the word "prescribed" in the Act means prescribed by rules made under the Act. Cl. (xiv) defines the "sample" to mean "a sample of any article of food taken under the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder."

3. A Central Committee for food standards has been constituted by the Central Government in accordance with Section 3 to advise on matters arising out of the administration of the Act and to carry out the other functions assigned to it. Section 7 provides that no person shall manufacture for sale, store, sell or distribute any adulterated food. Public Analysts are appointed under section 8. Food Inspectors appointed under section 9 have been conferred the powers enumerated in section 10. A Food Inspector has got power to take a sample of any article of food from any person selling such article under section 10 (1) (a) (i) and to send such sample for analysis to the Public Analyst for the local area within which such sample has been taken as provided for in clause (b). The procedure to be followed by Food Inspectors is provided for in section 11. Under sub-section (1), a Food Inspector taking a sample of food for analysis has to give notice to the person from whom he has taken the sample, separate the sample then and there into three parts, mark and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits, deliver one of the parts to the person from whom the sample has been taken, send another part for analysis to the Public Analyst and retain the third part for production in any legal proceedings or for analysis by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. Sub-section (2) says:

"If the person from whom sample has been taken declines to accept one of the parts, the food inspector shall send intimation to the public analyst of such refusal and thereupon the public analyst receiving a sample for analysis shall divide it into two parts and shall seal or fasten up one of those parts and shall cause it, either upon