https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169424 Non-compliance with Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, regarding the quantity of sample sent to the Public Analyst did not automatically vitiate the prosecution under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Court held that Rule 22 was directory, since the sampling provisions were intended to secure a correct analysis rather than operate as a technical trap. A shortfall in quantity was not fatal where the amount sent was sufficient for proper analysis and no prejudice was shown, so the Public Analyst's report retained evidentiary value. en-us Fri, 10 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:42:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169424 Non-compliance with Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, regarding the quantity of sample sent to the Public Analyst did not automatically vitiate the prosecution under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Court held that Rule 22 was directory, since the sampling provisions were intended to secure a correct analysis rather than operate as a technical trap. A shortfall in quantity was not fatal where the amount sent was sufficient for proper analysis and no prejudice was shown, so the Public Analyst's report retained evidentiary value. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169424