Food adulteration report deadline is directory; delayed delivery does not invalidate prosecution absent prejudice.

Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, which requires the Public Analyst to deliver the analysis report to the Local (Health) Authority within forty-five days, is treated as directory rather than mandatory. A delay in delivery does not, by itself, vitiate the prosecution because the rule regulates administrative compliance, not the validity of the analysis itself, and the scheme of the Act already contains safeguards for the accused. The prosecution is affected only if the accused shows actual prejudice from the delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, requiring the Public Analyst to deliver the report of analysis to the Local (Health) Authority within forty-five days, is mandatory or merely directory, and whether a delay beyond that period vitiates the prosecution.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act shows that the law is intended to secure public health by ensuring purity of food, while also balancing the rights of the accused and the practical realities of food inspection and analysis. The Act contains safeguards at several stages, including the right to seek the Director's report under Section 13(2), and the Rules regulate the working details. Rule 7(3) fixes a time for delivery of the analyst's report, but the provision does not expressly provide that a slight delay will invalidate the prosecution. The time limit concerns delivery of the report, not the conduct of the analysis itself, and a marginal delay does not necessarily cause prejudice to the accused. Construing the rule as mandatory would defeat the legislative purpose and allow technical delay, sometimes beyond the control of the local authority, to frustrate prosecution even where no real prejudice is shown.

Conclusion: Rule 7(3) is directory and not mandatory. A delay in delivering the report does not by itself nullify the prosecution unless prejudice to the accused is shown.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory time limit framed for performance of a public duty is directory where the enactment does not attach a voiding consequence and where rigid compliance would defeat the statute's purpose without necessarily causing prejudice.

---