Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is mandatory or directory, and whether delay in forwarding the public analyst's report by itself vitiates the prosecution.
Analysis: Rule 7(3) prescribes the time within which the Public Analyst is to deliver the report to the Local Health Authority. The provision operates at the pre-prosecution stage and is intended to expedite the process, not to create a rigid condition that automatically nullifies the proceedings. The relevant inquiry is whether the delay has caused prejudice to the accused, particularly by depriving the statutory right under Section 13(2) to seek analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. Mere breach of the time limit, without proof of such prejudice, does not render the report void or the prosecution unsustainable.
Conclusion: Rule 7(3) is directory and not mandatory. Delay in compliance is not fatal by itself, and the prosecution fails only where prejudice to the accused is shown.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected because non-compliance with the reporting time under Rule 7(3) did not, on the facts, warrant interference with the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: A procedural time prescription in the food adulteration rules is directory where its breach does not, by itself, prejudice the accused or defeat the statutory safeguard under Section 13(2).