https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302755 The court upheld the conviction and sentences of the first and second accused under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It ruled that Rule 7(3) regarding the timely delivery of the Public Analyst's report is directory, not mandatory, and substantial compliance is acceptable unless prejudice is proven. The court emphasized the Act's objective of safeguarding public health and preventing adulteration. The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the importance of adherence to procedural rules while considering the Act's overarching purpose. en-us Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Apr 2023 18:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302755 The court upheld the conviction and sentences of the first and second accused under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It ruled that Rule 7(3) regarding the timely delivery of the Public Analyst's report is directory, not mandatory, and substantial compliance is acceptable unless prejudice is proven. The court emphasized the Act's objective of safeguarding public health and preventing adulteration. The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the importance of adherence to procedural rules while considering the Act's overarching purpose. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302755