TULSI RAM vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

The Supreme Court held that the term 'immediately' in Rule 9A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is interpreted to mean 'at the earliest opportunity' rather than with urgency. The Court ruled that a delay of 18 days in forwarding the Public Analyst's report to the accused does not vitiate the trial, as non-compliance with Rule 9A is not fatal unless it causes prejudice. The Court upheld the conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, affirming that the accused's right to challenge the report was preserved despite the delay.