( 1 ) THE petitioner came to be convicted under sec 161 (1) (a) (i) read with sec. 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (the Act) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 with further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months in case of default by the learned Judicial Magistrate First class (Municipal) Baroda. His appeal against this order of conviction and sentence came to be dismissed. Hence this revision application.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution on January 17 1976 the Food Inspector visited the lodge run by the petitioner and found chillies powder lying in a tin. Therefore after complying with the necessary formalities he took sample and divided it in three parts. One of the bottles containing sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was adulterated. The defence of the accused that this particular chillies powder was meant for personal consumption of the petitioner-accused and not for the use in preparation of the food in the lodge did not succeed. However one of the several contentions raised before the Sessions Court was based on the nature and character of Rule 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (the Rules ). So far as compliance with the provisions of that Rule in the facts of this case was concerned it was an agreed position and a fact found by the learned Sessions Judge that the provisions of clause (b) of Rule 16 which require folded ends of the wrapper containing the sample to be affixed by means of gum or other adhesives were not separately complied with. The learned Sessions Judge having recited agreed facts in paragraph 11 in terms stated as under:with these facts the learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 (i e. Municipal Corporation) has fairly conceded that there is non-compliance with Rule 16 to the extent that the ends of the paper wrapper were not affixed by means of gum or other adhesive. It was further agreed that the two seals at the top and bottom of the container or bottle were affixed in such a manner that ends of the paper wrapper were fully covered by those seals. However the learned Judge thought it fit to proceed on the basis that factually the ends of the paper wrapper of the sample bottle have not been affixed by means of gum or other adhesive. The learned Judge was however of the view that there was no scope for a plea that any injustice has been caused or that there is any suspicious about the identity of the sample on account of non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 16. He was of the view that in the absence of the plea as to injustice being caused by non-compliance inter alia with the provisions of Rule 16 will not entitled the accused to an acquittal. For the proposition that apart from non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 16 it should further be demonstrated that the same resulted in injustice the learned Sessions Judge relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported as R. C. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra A. I. R. 1975 Supreme Court 189 In this connection the learned Judge in paragraph 18 of his judgment stated as under: the observations of the Supreme Court as discussed above show that mere infraction of the provisions of the Rules is not enough but there should also be a plea and a conclusion that injustice has been caused. I have gone through that decision and I find no observation to the above effect. The only reference in this connection that we find is in paragraph 17 of the judgment and the relevant observations are as under: the Public Analyst did not have the quantities mentioned in the Rules for analysis. The appellant rightly contends the 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.

( 3 ) THE contention raised on behalf of the p