FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. GOPINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) If a vendor refuses to acknowledge receipt of notice given by Food Inspector, does the vendor thereby prevent the Food Inspector in exercising his powers If a vendor declines to affix his signature in the mahazar or other document prepared by the Food Inspector, does he prevent the latter from exercising powers These questions need answers in this appeal filed against an order of acquittal.

(2.) Facts are these: A Food Inspector filed complaint against the respondent alleging offence under S.16(1)(d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'). On 24-3-1983, the Food Inspector visited the "Ice Cream Parlour" in which the respondent was working as a salesman. The owner of the shop was then absent. The Food Inspector purchased 900 grams of ice cream and the respondent received its price from the Food Inspector. Form VI notice was issued and the respondent wrote his name and date on the counterfoil thereof in token of acknowledgment. But the respondent declined to affix his signature on the counterfoil, even after being asked to do so by the Food Inspector. Further, the respondent did not issue a voucher (for receipt of price of the food article) in the manner required by the Food Inspector. Another allegation is that the respondent refused to put his signature in a mahazar which Food Inspector prepared while taking sample and that he dissuaded two persons (who were called as witnesses) from signing the said mahazar. Another criminal case was filed against the respondent and proprietor of the Ice Cream Parlour on the strength of the report of the Public Analyst in which the sample was reported to be adulterated. The fate of that criminal case has no relevance in this case.

(3.) S.16(1)(c) of the Act makes it penal if a Food Inspector is prevented from taking sample. S.16(1)(d) penalises the act of preventing a Food Inspector "from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under the Act". In this case, the Food Inspector has no case that the accused prevented him from taking a sample. So the question of penalty for preventing a Food Inspector "from taking a sample" does not arise here. To hold the respondent guilty it must be found that he prevented the Food Inspector "from exercising any other power conferred on him". So, the prosecution can succeed only by proving that the respondent prevented the Food Inspector from exercising "any other power conferred on him by the Act".