https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302755 Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was construed as directory because the statutory scheme aims to secure prompt public analyst reports, not to impose a rigid condition whose breach automatically defeats prosecution. The Court applied the test of legislative intent, statutory object, consequences of non-compliance, and actual prejudice, noting that the accused retains an independent safeguard under Section 13(2) to seek analysis by the Director, Central Food Laboratory. Mere delay in forwarding the report, without proof of prejudice, was held insufficient to invalidate the proceedings, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. 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 Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was construed as directory because the statutory scheme aims to secure prompt public analyst reports, not to impose a rigid condition whose breach automatically defeats prosecution. The Court applied the test of legislative intent, statutory object, consequences of non-compliance, and actual prejudice, noting that the accused retains an independent safeguard under Section 13(2) to seek analysis by the Director, Central Food Laboratory. Mere delay in forwarding the report, without proof of prejudice, was held insufficient to invalidate the proceedings, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302755