https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190399 The Supreme Court held that Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is directory, not mandatory. Non-compliance with the rule does not automatically invalidate the prosecution case unless prejudice is proven. The delay in following the rule does not render the report void. The Court emphasized that non-compliance must result in harm to the accused to dismiss the case. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that Rule 7(3) is procedural and non-fatal to the prosecution case without demonstrated prejudice. en-us Tue, 25 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:34:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190399 The Supreme Court held that Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is directory, not mandatory. Non-compliance with the rule does not automatically invalidate the prosecution case unless prejudice is proven. The delay in following the rule does not render the report void. The Court emphasized that non-compliance must result in harm to the accused to dismiss the case. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that Rule 7(3) is procedural and non-fatal to the prosecution case without demonstrated prejudice. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 25 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190399