https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283003 Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was treated as a procedural prescription governing an earlier stage of prosecution, and the Court applied the settled test of purpose, subject-matter, and consequence of non-compliance to hold it directory rather than mandatory. Non-observance of the time-limit did not by itself invalidate the public analyst report or bar prosecution; the accused had to show prejudice, especially impairment of the statutory right under Section 13(2). Mere delay, without proof of such prejudice, was insufficient, so the prosecution remained valid. en-us Fri, 07 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Sep 2019 14:09:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283003 Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was treated as a procedural prescription governing an earlier stage of prosecution, and the Court applied the settled test of purpose, subject-matter, and consequence of non-compliance to hold it directory rather than mandatory. Non-observance of the time-limit did not by itself invalidate the public analyst report or bar prosecution; the accused had to show prejudice, especially impairment of the statutory right under Section 13(2). Mere delay, without proof of such prejudice, was insufficient, so the prosecution remained valid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283003