( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1. 5. 2001 passed in C. C. No. 268 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, jangaon, by which the learned Magistrate found the accused-Balde Ramuloo not guilty for the offence under Sections 16 (l) (a) (ii), 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (b) of Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity act ) and accordingly acquitted him. ( 2 ) P. W. I A. Rameshwaram was a food Inspector of Warangal District, Division iii. Accused was the proprietor of M/s srinivasa Assam Tea Depot, Station Road, jangaon in Warangal District. On 20-12-1995 at about 1. 15 p. m. P. W. I along with his Assistant Food Controller, Zone VI, warangal made a surprise visit to M/s. Srinivasa Assam Tea Depot and found the accused transacting the business. He purchased 375 gms of tea dust under Ex. P. l cash receipt for the purpose of analysis. He divided the tea dust into three equal parts and collected in three empty bottles, packed and sealed the bottles as per the procedure contained in the Act and The prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short Rules ). He sent one sample bottle to the public analyst. On analysis the sample was found to be adulterated. Ex. P. l2 is the public analyst s report as per which the sample does not conform to the ash insoluble in Oil HCL and contains cashew husk and it is, therefore, categorized as adulterated one. After obtaining necessary sanction orders, P. W. I presented a complaint on 6-5-1996 before the Judicial First Class magistrate, Jangaon and thereafter sent a notice (Ex. P. 22) under Section 13 (2) of the Act to the accused on 23. 7. 1997. Ex. P. 23 is the postal receipt. Ex. P. 24 is the acknowledgment. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as C. C. No. 268 of 1996. On appearance of the accused/ respondent and on furnishing copies of the documents, the learned Magistrate examined the accused/ respondent under section 251 Cr. P. C putting the substance of the accusation levelled against him. The accused/respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the accusations levelled against the accused/ respondent, the prosecution examined P. Ws. l to 3 and marked Exs. P. l to P. 26. P. C putting the substance of the accusation levelled against him. The accused/respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the accusations levelled against the accused/ respondent, the prosecution examined P. Ws. l to 3 and marked Exs. P. l to P. 26. P. W. I is the Food Inspector and P. Ws. 2 and 3 are the panch witnesses and of whom latter one is no other than the attender attached to P. W. I. P. W. 2 did not support the prosecution and the prosecution declared him hostile. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record, found that P. W. I contravened section 13 (2) of the Act and Rules 19 and 22 of the Rules and thereby recorded acquittal of the accused/respondent. Assailing the judgment of acquittal, the State has filed this Criminal Appeal. ( 3 ) LEARNED Additional Public prosecutor submits that the Trial Court failed to note that Rules 9 (B), 19 and 22 of the Rules are not mandatory and that infraction of them is not a ground to acquit the accused/ respondent. He further submits that the accused/respondent has to satisfy that the infraction of the above-referred rules caused prejudice to him in putting forth his defence and then only he could claim benefit of infraction of above-referred rules. He placed reliance on the following decisions in Kandasami v. Food Inspector, athoor, 1982 Crl. LJ 963, State of Kerala v. Alasserry Mohd, AIR 1978 SC 933 and t. V. Usman v. Food Inspector, Tellichery municipality, AIR 1994 SC 1818 . ( 4 ) PER contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused/respondent submits that failure to comply the above referred rules resulted in loss of valuable right of the accused/respondent to get the second sample analyzed by the Central Food laboratory within a reasonable time and therefore the acquittal recorded by the magistrate is not required to be interfered in this appeal. It is also submitted by him that the above referred Rules must be held mandatory and having regard to the stringent provisions of the Act, strict compliance of the provisions of the Act as well as the rules should be insisted upon and on failure to comply with the above referred Rules, prejudice to the accused must be inferred. It is also submitted by him that the above referred Rules must be held mandatory and having regard to the stringent provisions of the Act, strict compliance of the provisions of the Act as well as the rules should be insisted upon and on failure to comply with the above referred Rules, prejudice to the accused must be inferred. Reliance was placed on the following decisions in Ahmed Dadabhai Advani v. State of Maharashtra, 1991 (1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 222 (SC), shambhubhai Sankabhai v. Chandrakant devshanker, 1996 (1) Prevention of Food adulteration Cases 236 (Gujarat High Court), and P. Chandrakanth v. State of A. P. , 2002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 113 (AP ). ( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate recorded acquittal of the accused/respondent on the ground that the prosecution has contravened section 13 (2) of the Act and Rules 19 and 22 of the Rules. Incidentally, I may also refer rule 9 (B) of the Rules. Section 13 (2) of the act reads as follows: " (2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14-A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. " rule 9 (B) of the Rules read as follows: "local (Health) Authority to send report to person concerned : The Local (Health) authority shall (within a period of ten days) after the institution of prosecution forward a copy of the report of the result of analysis in form III delivered to him under sub-rule (3) of Rule 7, by registered post or by hand, as may be appropriate, to the person from whom the sample of article was taken by the Food inspector and simultaneously also the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars has been disclosed under Section 14-A of the Act: provided that where the sample conforms to the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, and no prosecution is intended under sub-section (2) or no action is intended under sub-section (2-E) of Section 13 of the act, the Local (Health) Authority shall intimate the result to the vendor from whom the sample has been taken and also the person, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14-A of the Act, within 10 days from the receipt of the report from the Public Analyst. " rules 19 and 22 of the Rules read as follows: "19. Addition of preservatives to samples : any person taking a sample of any food for the purpose of analysis under the Act may add a preservative as may be prescribed from time to time to the sample for the purpose of maintaining it in a condition suitable for analysis. Rules 19, 20 and 21 deal with the addition of preservatives to samples of food taken by the food Inspector. Rule 19 permits the Food inspector to add a prescribed preservative to the sample but does not make it obligatory on him to do so. 22. Quantity of sample to be sent to the public Analyst: the quantity of sample of food to be sent to the Public Analyst/director for analysis shall be as specified below: s. No. Article of Food approximate quantity to be supplied 8. 22. Quantity of sample to be sent to the public Analyst: the quantity of sample of food to be sent to the Public Analyst/director for analysis shall be as specified below: s. No. Article of Food approximate quantity to be supplied 8. Tea 125 grams 22-A. Contents of one or more similar sealed containers having identical labels to constitute the quantity of a food sample:- where food is sold or stocked for sale or for distribution in sealed containers having identical label declaration, the contents of one or more of such containers as may be requireed to satisfy the quantity prescribed in rule 22 shall be treated to be a part of the sample. 22-B. Quantity of sample sent to be considered as sufficient: notwithstanding anything, contained in rule 22, the quantity of sample sent for analysis shall be considered as sufficient unless the Public Analyst or the Director reports to the contrary. " both under the amended Section 13 (2) of the Act as well as under substituted Rule 9 (B) of the Rules, the forwarding of the report by the Local (Health) Authority has to be done after the institution of the prosecution. The twin fold object sought to be achieved is protecting the interest of the society by ensuring that the trial of the cases filed under the Act are not protracted by the accused by making application at a belated stage for the sample being sent to the Central Food Laboratory, and at the same time, ensuring that due opportunity is given to the accused to set right any mistake contained in the report of the Public analyst by having a sample sent to the central Food Laboratory and obtaining a report from that institution. Since the opportunity afforded to an accused to have one of the samples sent to the Central food Laboratory is restricted to a period of 10 days and the time will begin to run from the date of service of a copy of the report together with the requisite information contemplated under Section 13 (2) of the act, it necessarily follows that sending of a copy of the report as well as information contemplated under Section 13 (2) of the Act must be done after the institution of the prosecution. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that copy of the public Analyst Report has been sent to the accused/respondent on 23. 7. 1997. Ex. P. 22 is the copy of the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act. Ex. P. 23 is the postal receipt and Ex. P. 24 is the acknowledgement. It can be said without any controversy that a public analyst report as required under section 13 (2) of the Act has been sent to the accused/respondent. The infraction as put forth by the accused/respondent is rule 9 (B) of the Rules. Under Rule 9 (B) of the Rules the Local (Health) Authority has to forward a copy of the report of the result of the analysis in Form 3 by registered post or by hand within ten days after the institution of the prosecution. Admittedly, the Public Analyst Report is not sent to the accused/respondent within ten days as provided in the above referred Rule. The question is whether Rule 9 (B) of the Rules is mandatory and violation of which vitiates the prosecution. It is no doubt the word "shall" is used in the above-referred Rule. The use of the word "shall" indicates that an imperative duty has been cast upon the local (Health) Authority to send a copy of the report within ten days after the institution of the prosecution. But it is well known that a mere use of the word "shall" does not invariably lead to this result. The whole purpose and the context of the provision has to be kept in view for deciding the issue. The object of the Act is to obtain the conviction of a person dealing with adulterated food. A question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Alasserry Mohd, AIR 1978 SC 933 , as to rule 22 of the Rules is mandatory or directory. The Supreme Court held that rule 22 of the Rules is directory and not mandatory and that the use of the word "approximate" in Rule 22 of the Rules does not indicate the directory nature of the Rule, but does not necessarily militate against the view that the Rule is mandatory. The expression approximate quantity is meant to convey that the quantity to be supplied must be in the close vicinity of the quantity specified. The expression approximate quantity is meant to convey that the quantity to be supplied must be in the close vicinity of the quantity specified. If the quantity supplied is sufficient and enables the Public Analyst to do his duty of making a correct analysis, it should be inferred that the Rule has been substantially complied with, as the purpose of the Rule has been achieved. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, P. W. I collected 375 grams of tea dust. But as per rule 22 of the Rules, the Food Inspector is required to take 125 grams approximately. What is done by the Food Inspector in this case is that he collected more than what is required under Rule 22 of the Rules. In the above referred case, the Supreme court held that if the quantity supplied is sufficient and enables the Public Analyst to do his duty of making correct analysis, it should be inferred that the Rule has been substantially confined with and the purpose of the Rule has been achieved. The public Analyst tested the sample and submitted his report. His report has been marked as Ex. P. 12. Therefore, Rule 22 of the Rules has been substantially complied with and there is no infraction of the same in this case. ( 7 ) WHAT is not complied with is rule 9 (B) of the Rules. The question is whether Rule 9 (B) of the Rules is mandatory or directory? The object of the above referred Rule is that the trial of cases filed under the Act are not protracted by the accused by making an application at a belated stage for the sample being sent to the Central Food Laboratory for further report, and at the same time, ensuring that due opportunity is given to the accused to set right any mistake contained in the report of the Public Analyst by having a sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory and obtaining a report from that institution. A question came up for consideration in tulsiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1984) 4 SCC 487 , where in the Supreme court held that Rule 9 (A) of the Rules is directory and not mandatory. Rule 9 (A) of the Rules (then in vogue) reads as follows:"9 (A): Local (Health) Authority to send report to person concerned. A question came up for consideration in tulsiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1984) 4 SCC 487 , where in the Supreme court held that Rule 9 (A) of the Rules is directory and not mandatory. Rule 9 (A) of the Rules (then in vogue) reads as follows:"9 (A): Local (Health) Authority to send report to person concerned. The Local (Health) Authority shall (within a period of ten days) after the institution of prosecution forward a copy of the report of the result of analysis in Form III delivered to him under sub-rule (3) of Rule 7, by registered post or by hand, as may be appropriate, to the person from whom the sample of the article was taken by the Food Inspector, and simultaneously also to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14-A of the Act. " ( 8 ) THE question whether Rule 9 (A) of the Rules is directory or mandatory in nature has now been settled by the apex Court. Reference in this connection may be made to a decision in the case in tulsiram v. State of M. P. , (1984) 4 SCC 487 , which in turn refers to the earlier decision in Dalchand v. Municipal corporation, Bhopal, (1984) 3 SCC 488. However, although the Rule is directory in nature if prejudice is shown flowing from the non-compliance of the Rule 9 (A) of the Rules the prosecution cannot succeed. The Supreme Court considered Rule 9 (A) of the Rules then in vogue in Ahmad dadabhai Advani v. State of Maharashtra, 1991 (1) Prevention of Food Adulteration cases 222. The relevant rule, with regard to supply of Public Analyst Report to the accused/respondent, as it originally stood was 9 (j) of the Rules worded as follows: rule 9: - If shall be the duty of the Food inspector -. . . . . . . . . (j) to send by hand or registered post a copy of the report received in Form III from the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken in case it is found to be not conforming to the Act or the Rules made thereunder as soon as the case is filed in the Court. . . . (j) to send by hand or registered post a copy of the report received in Form III from the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken in case it is found to be not conforming to the Act or the Rules made thereunder as soon as the case is filed in the Court. " the rule was subsequently substituted by s. R. O. No. A438/77 with Rule 9-A and the substituted rule reads as follows: "rule 9-A: The Local (Health) Authority shall, immediately after the institution of the prosecution, forward the copy of the result of analysis in form III delivered to him under sub-rule (3) or Rule 7, by registered post or by hand as may be appropriate, to the person from whom the sample of the article was taken by the Food Inspector and simultaneously also to the person if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14-A of the Act. " the above rule has been re-numbered as rule 9 (B) of the Rules by a Notification no. GSR 91 (E), dated 24-2-1995 (with effect from 24-8-1995 ). Rule 9 (B) of the Rules has been extracted supra vide para (5 ). As per the new rule, the report of the Public analyst analysis in Form III could be delivered to the effected party either by registered post or by hand as may be appropriate. What is of significance in the rule is that forwarding of the copy of the report has to be done within ten days after the institution of the prosecution. A Division bench of our High Court in Public prosecutor, Hyderabad v. J. Murlidhar, 1977 crl. LJ 1634, has construed the terms of rule 9 (J) of the Rules then in vogue and held as follows: ". . . . . . Of course, if there is some delay in sending the report, the complainant s case cannot be thrown out unless the accused shows that even this slight delay has caused prejudice to him. It is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rule regarding the delay in sending the report of the Public analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken. Every case will have to depend on its circumstances. It is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rule regarding the delay in sending the report of the Public analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken. Every case will have to depend on its circumstances. " the Supreme Court in Collector of Monghyr v. Keshavprasad, AIR 1962 SC 1694 , has observed as follows: "it is needless to add that the employment of the auxiliary verb shall is inconclusive and similarly the mere absence of the imperative is not conclusive either. The question whether any requirement is mandatory or directory has to be decided not merely on the basis of any specified provision which, for instance, sets out the consequences of the omission to observe the requirement, but on the purpose for which the requirement has been enacted, particularly in the context of the other provisions of the Act and the general scheme thereof. It would, inter alia, depend on whether the requirement is insisted on as a protection for the safeguarding of the right of liberty of person or of property which the action might involve. " the object of the Act has been detailed in the aforesaid paragraphs of the judgment. In view of the object of the Act and the purport of Section 13 (2) of the Act and rule 9 (B) of the Rules, I am in no doubt to conclude that Rule 9 (B) of the Rules is directory but not mandatory. It does not mean that the authorities can ignore the period stipulated in Rule 9 (B) of Rules. Though rule is recommendatory or mandatory it should be observed by the authorities concerned. They must remember that even the directory Rules are meant to be observed and substantially complied with. Merely because the report of the Public analyst is not sent within ten days of the prosecution, the same cannot vitiate the evidentiary value of the report nor it automatically entitles the accused to plead for acquittal. Therefore, I find that Rule 9 (B) of the Rules is directory and not mandatory. But at the same time, I make it clear that the authorities concerned must remember that even directory Rules are meant to be observed and substantially complied with. ( 9 ) IN the case on hand, the Food Inspector collected the samples on 20-12-1995, the public Analyst sent the report on 31. 6. 1996. But at the same time, I make it clear that the authorities concerned must remember that even directory Rules are meant to be observed and substantially complied with. ( 9 ) IN the case on hand, the Food Inspector collected the samples on 20-12-1995, the public Analyst sent the report on 31. 6. 1996. A complaint came to be presented before the Magistrate on 6. 5. 1996. The local (Health) Authority sent notice under section 13 (2) of the Act on 23-7-1997. Whenever there is an infraction of Rule 9 (B) of the Rules, the authorities have to offer reasons for the same. Admittedly, there is a delay of about one year two months in furnishing the copy of the report of the Public Analyst in compliance with rule 9 (B) of the Rules to the accused/ respondent. A Single Judge of our High court has considered the aspect of delay in furnishing the Public Analyst Report in p. Chandrakanth v. State of A. P. , 2002 (2) ald (Crl.) 113 (AP), and held that in view of the long delay in sending the Public analyst Report the accused lost a valuable right in getting the sample analyzed by the central Food Laboratory. Admittedly, there is delay of 14 months in furnishing copy of the Public Analyst Report to the accused/ respondent after filing the complaint before the Magistrate. No reasons have been offered by the authorities for such abnormal delay. Prejudice to the accused/respondent is to be inferred in the absence of any reasonable explanation by the concerned authorities for the abnormal delay in sending the copy of the Public Analyst Report. In the absence of any reasonable explanation by the appellant/ complainant for the abnormal delay in sending the Public Analyst Report to the respondent/accused in compliance with rule 9 (B) of the Rules prejudice to the respondent/accused is to be inferred. In view of the above discussion, I find that this is not a fit case to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon in CC. 268/96. ( 10 ) IN the result, this criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed.