Non-compliance with a procedural rule does not warrant acquittal if it does not cause prejudice to the accused.

1. - Mukanna Ram, the accused-respondent, has been acquitted by the trial court for offence Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The State of Rajasthan has filed this Appeal. Dr. Bhandawat submits that Rule 9(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is directory as held in Shakoor v. The State of Rajasthan 1977 RLW 29 and therefore since the acquittal is based only on this ground, the accused should be convicted.

2. It appears that Mukana Ram was selling milk on 8-11-1974 and sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector and it has been found to be adulterated by the trial court.

3. It is true that the acquittal is based only on this ground that Rule 9(j) has not been complied with. According to this, a copy of the report should have been sent to the accused by registered post within 10 days, which was not done. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh, Calcutta and Bombay High Courts. The trial court observed that there is no judgment of Rajasthan High Court. The present case is similar to the case of Shakoor (supra). The additional fact in this case is that the State's contention is that the address of the accused was complete where the copy of the report was sent but the accused did not accept it.

4. PW 1 Shivdutt has stated that on November 30, 1974, the copy of the report was handed over personally.

5. In view of the above I am of opinion that no prejudice was caused to the accused and his acquittal cannot be upheld. However, the offence was committed on 18-11-74 and we are now in 1986. In view of the above, I would adopt the principles laid down in Ramdev v. Sadanand and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 126 , and sentence the accused to a fine of Rs. 2,000/-only. In default of payment of fine, the accused would undergo sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment.

6. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.Order accordingly.

*******