( 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 Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act; (ii) non-compliance of Rule 18; (iii) delay in prosecution; and (iv) identity of the respondent as the person from whom sample was purchased not proved,

( 5. ) COMPLAINANT Food Inspector filed an appeal before this Court against respondents acquittal. The appeal came for hearing before Single Bench, After recording its findings on ground Nos. (ii), (iii) and (iv) supra, the Court noted a conflict of decisions of this Court on ground No. (i) i. e. the effect of non-compliance of Rule 9 (j) of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. After holding that there was non-compliance of this Rule the Single Bench referred the above question for decision by a larger Bench.

( 6. ) AS already mentioned in the referring order there are conflicting single Bench decisions of this Court on the question. In Ramchandra v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Revn. No. 354 of 1976 dated 15-21979), the learned single Judge held that the Rule was directory and not mandatory. In Sagarmal v. State Criminal Revn. No. 225 of 1979 dated 23-4-1980 another single Judge held that the Rule was mandatory. There have been decisions of other High Courts also which we will presently refer.

( 7. ) RULE 9 deals with the duties of the Food Inspector, Rule 9 (j) as it stood at the relevant time may be reproduced: 9. Duties of Food Inspector--It shall be the duty of the Food Inspector: CD to send by registered post, a. copy of the report received in Form II from the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken within ten days of the receipt of the said report. However, in case the sample conforms to the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder, then the person may be informed of the same and the report need not be sent.

( 8. ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court have from time to time laid down various tests for determining whether a particular Rule is mandatory or directory. Summing up the earlier authorities, the Supreme Court in Sharifuddin v. Abdul Gani Lone observed in para 9 of the judgment as follows: The fact that the statute uses the word shall while laying down a duty is not conclusive on the question whether it is a mandatory or directory provision. In order to find out the true character of the legislation, the Court has to ascertain the object which the provision of law in question is to subserve and its design and the context in which it is enacted. If the object of a law is to be defeated by non-compliance with it, it has to be regarded as mandatory. But when a provision of law relates to the performance of any public duty and the invalidation of any act done in disregard of that provision causes serious prejudice to those for whose benefit it is enacted and at the same time who h