(1) THIS appeal by special leave has been filed in this court against the conviction of the appellant under S. 7(1) read with Section 16(1) (a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The pro- secution case was that when a sample of dhania was taken and was sent for analysis total ash percentage was found a little above the standard prescribed for dhania. At the trial the appellant was acquitted on the ground that the quantity of sample taken was short of what was required to be taken under Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Against this acquittal an appeal was taken up to the High court and it appears that when the appeal came up for hearing there was a decision of this court which took the view that Rule 22 is not mandatory but only directory and on this ground alone the accused could not be acquitted. Consequently following the judgment of this court the Honble High court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00.

(2) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant frankly conceded that in the face of this judgment of this court referred to above not much could be said on the merits of the matter but it was contended that the appellant had already deposited the amount of fine and also been in jail for some time during this period and ultimately the matter has come up for hearing more than about 15 years after the sample was taken and in this view of the matter no useful purpose will be served by sending him to jail for serving out a short term of imprisonment which remained unserved. Counsel appearing tor the respondent also admits that long time has elapsed. Having considered all these peculiar circumstances of the case and also of the fact that Public Analyst Report does not indicate any addition of a foreign substance. but the only irregularity found was that the total ash percentage was a little above the standard prescribed. In view of these circumstances in our opinion the sentence undergone will meet the ends of justice. The appeal is partly allowed, conviction of the appellant under Section 7(1) read with S. 16(1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained and he is sentenced to the sentence already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 . If the fine is not paid, it shall be paid within one month from today. His bail bond shall be cancelled.