https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190399 Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was treated as directory because it fixes a pre-prosecution time limit intended to expedite forwarding of the Public Analyst's report, not to create an automatic bar to prosecution. Mere delay in compliance does not vitiate the report or the proceedings unless the accused shows prejudice, especially deprivation of the statutory right under Section 13(2) to seek analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. On the facts, no such prejudice was shown, so the conviction was not disturbed and the appeal was rejected. 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 Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was treated as directory because it fixes a pre-prosecution time limit intended to expedite forwarding of the Public Analyst's report, not to create an automatic bar to prosecution. Mere delay in compliance does not vitiate the report or the proceedings unless the accused shows prejudice, especially deprivation of the statutory right under Section 13(2) to seek analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. On the facts, no such prejudice was shown, so the conviction was not disturbed and the appeal was rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 25 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190399