N. H. BHATT, S. H. SHETH, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal the learned single Judge has referred to the Division Bench the following question : Whether the provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 4 in so far as they stipulate that a copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used to-seal the container and the cover should be sent separately are mandatory or are directory. In order to answer the question which has been referred to the Division Bench it is necessary to briefly state the facts of the case. The accused was prosecuted under sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 for having sold to the complainant chilly powder adulterated with coal tar dye. The complainant-Food Inspector took from the accused the sample of chilly powder for analysis and divided it into three parts. As required by sub-sec. (1) of sec. 11 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act 1954 he delivered one part of the sample to the accused sent another for analysis to the Public Analyst and produced the third in the Court below. As required by sub-sec. (1) of sec. 13 of the said Act the Public Analyst sent his report to the Food Inspector. He found that the chilly powder

Click Here to Read the rest of this document