https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283003 The Supreme Court held that Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is directory, not mandatory. The Court found that the delay in receiving the Analyst's report did not prejudice the accused or render the report void. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant (A-1) were upheld. 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 The Supreme Court held that Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is directory, not mandatory. The Court found that the delay in receiving the Analyst's report did not prejudice the accused or render the report void. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant (A-1) were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283003