RAMDAS BHIKAJI CHAUDHARI vs SADA NAND & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of the respondents by the Bombay High Court under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was erroneous, as it followed an earlier decision in Rajlal Pamnani's case which was overruled. The Court clarified that the amendment to Rule 22 was a clarification rather than a strict amendment, establishing that the Public Analyst determines the sufficiency of the sample quantity. The Court emphasized that once a decision is overruled by a larger bench, it completely supersedes the previous ruling, mandating adherence to the new legal interpretation.