JOY Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under S.16(1)(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, if any person prevents a Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised by the Act he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. The revision petitioners have been punished under this provision on the basis of the complaint filed by the Food Inspector. The allegation was that the complainant visited j the shop T. P. III/366/B in Thalavoor Panchayat on 23-1-1982 at 9.30 a.m. The first accused Joy, the licencee, and the second accused Daniel, the proprietor, were present in the shop and they obstructed the Food Inspector and prevented him from taking samples for the purpose of analysis in exercise of his official duty. A complaint was filed on 24-2-1982. In support of the allegations the Food Inspector and his Peon were examined as pws. 1 and 2. Ext. P2 mahazar and Ext. P3 receipt for payment of licence fee were proved. The accused in denying the accusation set up a case that it was a malicious prosecution on the part of the Food Inspector and also proved Ext. Dl notice and examined three witnesses on the defence side.

(2.) The learned Magistrate accepted the testimony of the complainant and his assistant, found the allegations true and convicted both the accused and sentenced each to undergo R.1 for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer S.1 for one week each. The appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. The matter is taken up in revision to this court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners urged that the conviction is wrong, that the courts below have acted upon irrelevant and extraneous materials without taking into consideration the serious infirmities which would render the case unacceptable. There is considerable force in this contention.