( 1 ) -THE question whether the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Rules) are mandatory, noncompliance with which would prove fatal to the prosecution, or whether they are directory, non-compliance with which would not prove fatal in the absence of prejudice to the accused, arises for determination in this appeal by special leave by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the judgment of Magistrate I Class, Delhi, whereby he acquitted Chhote Lal respondent in a case under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (No. 37 of 1954), hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act. The matter was REFERRED TO to Full Bench in view of the conflict of opinion expressed by two Division Benches of this Court.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that on May 1, 1968 at about 7 A. M. , Food Inspector V. B. Sharma went to the shop of the accused in Gali No. 12, Kailash Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. The words "cow s milk and curd are sold here" were written with chalk on the door of the shop. The Food Inspector purchased 660 millilitres of cow s milk from the accused for 80