Rule 22 sampling shortfall is directory, not mandatory, where the sample remains adequate for proper analysis.

Non-compliance with Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, regarding the quantity of sample sent to the Public Analyst did not automatically vitiate the prosecution under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Court held that Rule 22 was directory, since the sampling provisions were intended to secure a correct analysis rather than operate as a technical trap. A shortfall in quantity was not fatal where the amount sent was sufficient for proper analysis and no prejudice was shown, so the Public Analyst's report retained evidentiary value.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, as to the quantity of sample sent to the Public Analyst, vitiates the trial or conviction under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the Food Inspector to take and forward samples in accordance with the rules, but the purpose of the sampling provisions was to secure a correct analysis of adulterated food and not to create a technical trap. Rule 22 used the expression "approximate quantity" and was framed in the context of ensuring that enough material was available for analysis and possible further testing. The Court held that the mere use of the word "shall" did not make the provision mandatory in every case. If the quantity actually sent, though short of the prescribed amount, was sufficient for proper analysis and no prejudice was shown, the breach did not destroy the evidentiary value of the Public Analyst's report. The later insertion of Rule 22B was treated as clarificatory of the same position.

Conclusion: Rule 22 is directory and not mandatory; short supply of sample does not by itself vitiate the prosecution or conviction if the Public Analyst could still make a correct analysis.

---