SAIDU MOHAMMED Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO accused, father and son. were put on trial before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kunnamkulam, in C. C. No. 1016 of 1971 for offences under Ss 10 (I) (a) (i) and 10 (2) read with S. 16 (1) (b) and (c) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The first accused is the licensee of the shop in building No. 11/1009 situated in koottungal Bazaar of Chowghat Panchayat. The 2nd accused is his son. When pw. 1, the Food Inspector, Inspected the shop on 18 91971 at about 1. 00 P. M. the 2nd accused alone was present in the shop. pw. 1 wanted 600 grams of toffee manufactured by the Corners Company. The 2nd accused refused to give the sample stating that the toffee was stocked in a package of 1 Kg. and it was not sold in retail and therefore if pw. 1 wanted be could purchase one full packet. He was also told that the packet contained a warranty which also stated that the manufacturers will not be answerable if the toffee was sold loose. pw. 1 insisted. The 2nd accused thereupon gave a statement Ex. P1 to pw. 1. Thereafter charge was laid.

(2.) THE trial court acquitted the first accused, but convicted the 2nd accused and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. THE matter was taken is appeal. THE learned Sessions Judge, Trichur, confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision.

(3.) IT is necessary here to extract the relevant provisions of law which have a bearing on this case. The offences with which the accused are charged are under S. 10 (1) (a) (i) read with S. 16 (1) (b) of the Act. S. 16 (1) (b) reads as follows: "16 (1 ). If any person' . . . . . . . . . . (b) prevents a food inspector from taking a sample as authorised by this Act; or he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of S. 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to six years, and with fine, which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. " This section contemplates "prevention" of the food Inspector from taking a sample, which he is empowered to do under the Act. Does the section postulate an overt act on the part of the accused amounting to preventing the Food Inspector from taking a sample? The answer will depend upon the range of the expression "prevention" and the effect of the expression "taking a sample" occurring in the section. In other words, what this Court has to consider is whether "prevention" should be in the form of a conscious overt act on the part of the accused or whether an omission on his part would be sufficient to bring his act within the said expression. Also whether the expression "taking a sample" would mean refusing to sell an article of food.