1978 (2) TMI 212 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether non-compliance with Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, vitiates the trial or conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. Whether Rule 22 is mandatory or directory.
3. The impact of the quantity of sample sent for analysis on the validity of the Public Analyst's report.
4. The significance and interpretation of the term "approximate quantity" in Rule 22.
5. The effect of the newly added Rule 22B on the interpretation of Rule 22.
6. The broader implications of technical non-compliance on public health and justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-Compliance with Rule 22:
The central issue was whether non-compliance with Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, vitiates the trial or conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The Court examined the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions, noting that the articles of food sold were found to be adulterated. The Court observed that the conviction of the appellant in a previous case was set aside due to non-compliance with the quantity requirements for analysis, which was deemed to cause injustice.

2. Mandatory or Directory Nature of Rule 22:
The Court analyzed whether Rule 22 is mandatory or directory. It noted that many High Courts had previously held that Rule 22 was directory, as indicated by the use of the word "approximate" in the quantity column. The Court emphasized that even directory rules must be substantially complied with, and a breach could lead to departmental consequences for Food Inspectors. The Court concluded that Rule 22 is directory, not mandatory, but stressed the importance of compliance to avoid prejudice to the accused.

3. Impact of Sample Quantity on Public Analyst's Report:
The Court discussed the importance of the quantity of the sample sent for analysis, noting that the prescribed quantities are generally more than double the amount required for analysis. This is to account for the possibility that the person from whom the sample is taken might refuse to accept one part of it. The Court held that if the quantity sent is sufficient for the Public Analyst to make a correct analysis, the report should not be nullified merely due to non-compliance with the exact quantity prescribed.

4. Interpretation of "Approximate Quantity":
The Court examined the term "approximate quantity" in Rule 22, concluding that it indicates the directory nature of the Rule. The term suggests that the quantity should be in close vicinity to the specified amount, and substantial compliance is sufficient if the purpose of the Rule is achieved.

5. Effect of Rule 22B:
The Court noted the introduction of Rule 22B in 1977, which states that the quantity of the sample sent for analysis shall be considered sufficient unless the Public Analyst or Director reports otherwise. The Court opined that Rule 22B clarifies the law rather than amending it, reinforcing the view that substantial compliance with Rule 22 is sufficient.

6. Broader Implications:
The Court highlighted the broader implications of technical non-compliance, emphasizing that acquitting offenders on technical grounds could endanger public health. The Court referred to principles from U.S. Supreme Court decisions, stressing that technicalities should not obstruct the administration of justice and the protection of public health.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that Rule 22 is directory and not mandatory, and substantial compliance with the Rule is sufficient. The appeals were allowed, but the Court did not set aside the acquittals or send the cases back to the lower courts, considering the long-standing interpretation of the law and the introduction of Rule 22B. The Court emphasized the importance of correct legal interpretation while balancing the interests of justice and public health.