1. - Inspite of a clear finding of adulteration in Milk, the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on an untenable technical ground that the quantity of Milk sent for analysis was not sufficient and was in violation of Rules.

2. Since the facts giving rise to this appeal are not in dispute so also the law, the only question which requires consideration and adjudication is whether the accused-respondent should be convicted and if the answer is in affirmative then what would be the sentence to be imposed against the accused.

3. Interestingly enough, the guidelines laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in series of cases are not uniform, due to different facts.

4. The question, whether rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `the Rules') is directory or mandatory; is now settled by the decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Allassorry Mohd, AIR 1978 S.C. 933 and the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Rajal Das G. Pamanani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 S.C. 189 now stands overruled by the decision of a la