JUDGMENT

S. M. FAZAL ALI, J.:— This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Bombay High Court acquitting the respondents of the charge under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The respondents were convicted under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and fined Rupees 2,000 as modified by the Sessions Judge in appeal. The High Court accepted all the facts proved in the case and found that the confectionery drops sold by the accused to the Food Inspector by way of sample contained coal tar dye. The High Court however, acquitted the respondents only on the ground that under Rule 22 as it stood before the amendment required that the minimum quantity of 500 gms. of the sample seized should be sent for analysis. This rule was subsequently amended by Rule 22B. In fact as pointed by this Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Alassery Mohammed, (1978) 2 SCR 820, the amendment by Rule 22B was not really an amendment in the strict sense of the term but merely a clarification of what was really intended by the original Rule 22. The High Court however, on the basis of the decision of this Co