( 1. ) THIS is a reference by a single Bench of this Court seeking our opinion on the following question: Whether Rule 9 (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules as it stood at the relevant time, was mandatory in nature and non-compliance thereof i. e non-supply of the Public Analysts report to the vendor, was fatal to the prosecution.

( 2. ) ON 13-3-1976 Food Inspector, Municipal Council, Mandsaur purchased sample of cows milk from the respondent and after completing the formalities under the Act and the Rules about service of notice, addition of preservative etc, he sent one sample for analysis to the Public Analyst, The Public Analyst reported that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Rules for cows milk. The report of the Public Analyst was received by the Food Inspector on 294-1976 and the complaint was filed on 2-7-1976 for a charge under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

( 3. ) THE defence was total denial of each and every fact including sale of milk for analysis.

( 4. ) LEARNED Magistrate after trial acquitted the respondent on the following grounds:

(i) Non-compliance of Rule 9 (i) of the Rul