https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197362 Non-compliance with the quantity requirement in Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 does not automatically vitiate prosecution or conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The provision was treated as directory because its object is to secure sufficient sample quantity for proper analysis and preserve the statutory safeguards in the sampling process. Where the sample is adequate for correct analysis, the Public Analyst can perform the test without doubt or prejudice, and the statutory purpose is not defeated, the report retains evidentiary value despite a shortfall. en-us Fri, 10 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jan 2018 16:39:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197362 Non-compliance with the quantity requirement in Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 does not automatically vitiate prosecution or conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The provision was treated as directory because its object is to secure sufficient sample quantity for proper analysis and preserve the statutory safeguards in the sampling process. Where the sample is adequate for correct analysis, the Public Analyst can perform the test without doubt or prejudice, and the statutory purpose is not defeated, the report retains evidentiary value despite a shortfall. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197362