Sampling quantity requirements are directory when substantial compliance enables proper analysis without prejudice to the accused.

Non-compliance with the quantity requirement in Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 does not automatically vitiate prosecution or conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The provision was treated as directory because its object is to secure sufficient sample quantity for proper analysis and preserve the statutory safeguards in the sampling process. Where the sample is adequate for correct analysis, the Public Analyst can perform the test without doubt or prejudice, and the statutory purpose is not defeated, the report retains evidentiary value despite a shortfall.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with the quantity requirement in Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 vitiates the trial or conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Analysis: The Court examined the scheme of the Act and the Rules governing sampling, analysis, and the evidentiary value of the Public Analyst's report. It held that the object of Rule 22 is to secure a quantity sufficient for proper analysis and for the statutory safeguards built into the sampling process. The use of the word "shall" and the description of the quantity as "approximate" were considered in context, and the Court concluded that the provision is meant to ensure substantial compliance, not to invalidate proceedings for every shortfall. If the quantity sent is sufficient for correct analysis and the Public Analyst is able to perform his function without doubt or prejudice, the report does not lose its evidentiary value merely because the prescribed quantity was not strictly supplied.

Conclusion: Rule 22 is directory and not mandatory. Mere non-compliance with the prescribed quantity requirement does not by itself vitiate the prosecution or conviction if the sample was sufficient for proper analysis and the statutory purpose was not frustrated.

Final Conclusion: The correct legal position was declared in favour of sustaining convictions only where the shortfall causes real prejudice or defeats the statutory object, and the earlier contrary view was disapproved.

Ratio Decidendi: A sampling requirement framed to secure effective analysis is directory when the statutory purpose can still be achieved by substantial compliance and no prejudice results from the shortfall.

---