Directory provision

Rules 4 & 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 are directory and not mandatory in nature

Mere fact that samples were sent beyond the prescribed period of 72 hours would not be fatal unless the accused shows that the samples were tampered or he was otherwise prejudiced by the delay.

Rules 4 and 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 did not place any bar on investigating officer to send samples beyond seventy two hours of seizure of substance

Such rules were directory and not mandatory and could not control substantive provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Rules were to be applied in such a manner that their operation did not frustrate the purpose of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Failure to follow said rules did not render seizure of the alleged substance as absolute nullity

Bail was declined.

Contention that the provisions contained in O. XXI, Rr. 54 & 67, C.P.C., were only directory in nature and not mandatory, thus failure to comply therewith could not undo an auction

Validity

Such contention was correct so long as it did not cause prejudice to any of the stakeholders, but where it was otherwise, failure to comply with the said provisions could not be brushed aside without due application of mind

Court had to undo a sale if failure to comply with the said provisions caused injustice, as said provisions had been enacted to advance and not impede the cause of justice.

Contention that the provisions contained in O. XXI, Rr. 54 & 67, C.P.C., were only directory in nature and not mandatory, thus failure to comply therewith could not undo an auction

Validity

Such contention was correct so long as it did not cause prejudice to any of the stakeholders, but where it was otherwise, failure to comply with the said provisions could not be brushed aside without due application of mind

Court had to undo a sale if failure to comply with the said provisions caused injustice, as said provisions had been enacted to advance and not impede the cause of justice.

Landlord submitted two affidavits at the time of filing of eviction petition and filed new affidavits afterwards containing additional grounds

Landlord had contended that it was nowhere provided that affidavits could not be submitted subsequently

Validity

No penal provision having been provided for non-submission of the affidavits at the time of institution of eviction petition

Legislature did not intend to deprive the parties to produce evidence merely due to omission to submit the affidavits along with the petition

Constitutional petition was dismissed.