1994 (1) TMI 292 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is mandatory or directory.
2. Whether non-compliance with Rule 7(3) is fatal to the prosecution case.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is mandatory or directory.
The main question in this appeal is whether Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is mandatory or only directory. The appellant was charged u/s 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) read with Section 7(i) and (v) and 2(1a)(a) and (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The First-Class Magistrate acquitted the appellant on the ground that Rule 7(3) was violated, as the Local Health Authority received the Analyst's report beyond 45 days. The High Court, however, held that Rule 7(3) is not mandatory and non-compliance should be considered only if prejudice is established. The Supreme Court reviewed various judgments from different High Courts, noting a divergence of opinion on whether Rule 7(3) is mandatory or directory. The Court concluded that Rule 7(3) is only directory, emphasizing that the rule deals with stages prior to launching the prosecution and is meant to speed up the process of investigation. The Court stated that unless there is proof of prejudice, non-compliance with Rule 7(3) is not fatal to the prosecution.

Issue 2: Whether non-compliance with Rule 7(3) is fatal to the prosecution case.
The Supreme Court held that mere delay in complying with Rule 7(3) does not per se render the report void or inadmissible in law. The Court emphasized that Rule 7(3) is a procedural provision and non-compliance must be shown to have caused prejudice to the accused. The Court referenced the judgment in Dalchand v. Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, which held that Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is directory and not mandatory. The Court concluded that unless the delay leads to the denial of the right conferred u/s 13(2) of the Act, non-compliance with Rule 7(3) cannot be a ground for dismissing the prosecution case. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that Rule 7(3) is directory and not mandatory.