Directory sample rule under food adulteration law displaces earlier acquittal; conviction restored after larger-bench precedent

A prior acquittal resting on the view that Rule 22 required 500 grams of sample for analysis could not stand after a larger Bench held the rule to be directory and left sample sufficiency to the Public Analyst. That later ruling displaced the earlier precedent, so the acquittal based on the overruled interpretation could not survive under Article 141. The Court also declined to treat the matter as a mere test case or to refuse interference on discretionary grounds under Article 136, since the prosecution had actively sought reversal. The acquittal was set aside, the respondents were convicted under the food adulteration law, and the sentence was confined to fine.

---

---

Issues: Whether an acquittal based on the view that Rule 22 required 500 grams of sample to be sent for analysis could be sustained after the later larger-bench ruling that the rule was directory, and whether the respondents' conviction under the food adulteration law should be restored.

Analysis: The prior view that non-compliance with the 500-gram quantity requirement vitiated the prosecution had been overruled by a larger bench, which held that Rule 22 was directory and that sufficiency of the sample was a matter for the Public Analyst. Once that later ruling displaced the earlier precedent, the acquittal resting on the overruled view could not survive under Article 141. The case was not treated as a mere test case, and the prosecution did actively seek reversal, so there was no basis to decline interference on discretionary grounds under Article 136.

Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the respondents were convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and the sentence was confined to fine.

---