https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184104 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. en-us Wed, 03 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:03:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184104 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184104