Violation of Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vitiates the prosecution, and the rule is mandatory, emphasizing the importance of prompt and expeditious discharge of duties by the public analyst.

The appellant is the Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality. A complaint was filed by him against the accused-respondents for offences punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(g) read with Section 7(1) and Section 2(1a)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

2. P.W. 1, Food Inspector, visited the shop of the second respondent in Big Bazaar, Palghat, at about 11.15 a.m. on 19-6-1978. He purchased 600 grams of "Raja Brand" Sambar Powder for the purpose of analysis. This powder was in 12 packets of 50 grams each. After following the formalities prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act P.W. 1 broke the packets and mixed them in a paper. The powder was then divided into three equal parts and each part was put in a clean and dry bottle. The bottles were packed and sealed as directed in the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. A mahazar was prepared in the presence of witnesses and attested by them. One of the samples was sent for analysis. The Public Analyst in his report Ext. P7 stated that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for curry powder under the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and therefore was adulterated. The second accused pleaded that he purchased the article under a warranty from the first accused. The complaint was filed against both the accused.

3. The first accused contended that he did not get the report of the public analyst, that the name of his firm is "Raja Products" and that he was not doing the trade in the name of "Raja Brand" and that the bill, under which the second accused claimed to have purchased the articles, was not from any body representing his firm. He therefore claimed that he was not liable for any offence. The second accused admitted having sold sambar powder and having issued the bill and signed on the sample bottles. He however contended that no standard has been fixed for sambar powder and that the article is something different from the curry powder, for which the standard has been fixed. A contention was also raised that there was contravention of Rule 7(3) of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and also of Rule 22A and as such the prosecution was not maintainable.

4. The trial Court overruled the plea that the sample did not come under curry Powder for which a standard has been fixed under the Act and the Rules. The trial Court however upheld the contentions of the second accused that there was contravention of Rule 7(3) framed under the Act and also that he was entitled to rely, on the warranty. The Court held that the provisions of Rule 7(3) framed under the Act are mandatory and therefore the complaint filed in contravention of the said rule was liable to be dismissed. The Court, accordingly, acquitted both the accused. The order of acquittal is challenged in the present appeal.

5. It is common case that no standard has been fixed specifically for "sambar powder". The contention of the appellant is that "sambar powder" comes under the head "curry powder" in Clause A.65.21 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Under the said provision curry powder means, the "powder obtained from grinding clean, dried and sound spices belonging to the group of aromatic herbs and seeds such as black pepper, cinnamon, cloves, coriander, cardamom, chillies, cumin seeds, fenugreek, garlic, ginger, mustard, poppy seeds, turmeric, mace, nutmeg, curry leaves, white pepper, saffron and aniseeds. The material may contain added starch and edible common salt. The proportion of spices used in the preparation of curry powder shall be not less than 85.0 per cent by weight. The powder shall be free from dirt, mould growth and insect infestation it shall be free from any added colouring matter and preservatives other than edible common salt." After mentioning the standard for the several ingredients Clause A.05.21 proceeds to say that whenever edible common