Directory procedural requirement for timely analyst reports, with no vitiation absent prejudice.

A procedural requirement enacted to advance the object of a public welfare statute will be treated as directory where strict compliance would defeat that purpose. Rule 9(j) requiring supply of the Public Analyst's report within 10 days was held directory, not mandatory, because it was designed to secure prompt communication and enable timely challenge. Failure to comply did not vitiate the prosecution in the absence of prejudice to the accused.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 9(j) requiring supply of the Public Analyst's report within 10 days was mandatory or directory, and whether non-compliance without proof of prejudice vitiated the prosecution.

Analysis: The object of the provision was to secure expedition and to enable the accused to take timely steps to challenge the Public Analyst's report. The period prescribed was not treated as a period of limitation creating a vested right on expiry, but as an to ensure prompt communication. The consequence of non-compliance had to be assessed in light of the statute's purpose, and where no prejudice was shown the breach did not defeat the prosecution. The rule was therefore construed as serving the public purpose of the enactment rather than as an inflexible condition precedent.

Conclusion: Rule 9(j) was directory and not mandatory; in the absence of prejudice, failure to supply the report within 10 days did not invalidate the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural requirement enacted to advance the object of a public welfare statute is directory where strict literal compliance would defeat that object, and non-compliance does not vitiate proceedings unless prejudice is shown.

---