Mandatory prompt supply of the Public Analyst's report sustained the acquittal in a food adulteration prosecution.

Delayed supply of the Public Analyst's report in a food adulteration prosecution was treated as a gross breach of Rule 9(j) as it stood on the relevant date. The requirement of prompt communication was regarded as mandatory, and Rule 9-A was considered analogous in reinforcing that obligation. Because the report reached the accused long after the complaint, the delay prejudiced the defence and independently supported the acquittal. The acquittal was therefore sustained and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's acquittal was liable to be reversed despite the delay in supplying the Public Analyst's report in breach of Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.

Analysis: The prosecution was founded on a sample of an article alleged to be adulterated, but the report of the Public Analyst was not furnished to the accused until long after the complaint had been filed. On the facts, there was a gross breach of Rule 9(j) as it stood on the relevant date. The later Rule 9-A, which required forwarding of the analyst's report immediately after institution of prosecution, was treated as analogous and the requirement of prompt communication was regarded as mandatory. The delay defeated the prosecution case and furnished an independent ground supporting the acquittal.

Conclusion: The acquittal was rightly sustained and the appeal failed.

---