Directory time-limit for public analyst reports: mere delay does not vitiate prosecution without proven prejudice.

Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was construed as directory because the statutory scheme aims to secure prompt public analyst reports, not to impose a rigid condition whose breach automatically defeats prosecution. The Court applied the test of legislative intent, statutory object, consequences of non-compliance, and actual prejudice, noting that the accused retains an independent safeguard under Section 13(2) to seek analysis by the Director, Central Food Laboratory. Mere delay in forwarding the report, without proof of prejudice, was held insufficient to invalidate the proceedings, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, prescribing the time within which the public analyst must deliver the report, is mandatory or directory, and whether its non-compliance by itself vitiates the prosecution and entitles the accused to acquittal.

Analysis: The Rule was construed in the context of the scheme of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which is directed to preventing adulteration of food and protecting public health. The Court applied settled principles that the language used is not ative by itself and that the true test is legislative intent, the object of the enactment, the consequences of treating the provision as mandatory or directory, and whether prejudice is caused. The statutory scheme showed that several procedural steps are subject to time limits while others are not, and that the accused has an independent safeguard under Section 13(2) to seek analysis by the Director, Central Food Laboratory. In that setting, the prescribed period in Rule 7(3) was intended to ensure expedition and promptitude in the public analyst's function, not to create a rigid condition the breach of which would automatically nullify the prosecution. Mere delay, without proof of prejudice, was held insufficient to invalidate the proceedings.

Conclusion: Rule 7(3) is directory and not mandatory. Delay in forwarding the public analyst's report does not by itself vitiate the conviction unless prejudice is shown. The revision petition was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

---