https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306182 Delayed supply of the Public Analyst's report in a food adulteration prosecution was treated as a gross breach of Rule 9(j) as it stood on the relevant date. The requirement of prompt communication was regarded as mandatory, and Rule 9-A was considered analogous in reinforcing that obligation. Because the report reached the accused long after the complaint, the delay prejudiced the defence and independently supported the acquittal. The acquittal was therefore sustained and the appeal failed. en-us Fri, 17 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:47:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306182 Delayed supply of the Public Analyst's report in a food adulteration prosecution was treated as a gross breach of Rule 9(j) as it stood on the relevant date. The requirement of prompt communication was regarded as mandatory, and Rule 9-A was considered analogous in reinforcing that obligation. Because the report reached the accused long after the complaint, the delay prejudiced the defence and independently supported the acquittal. The acquittal was therefore sustained and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306182