MUNICIPAL BOARD SAMBHAL Vs. JHAMMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against acquittal in a case under Section 7/16(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) The Food Inspector reached the shop of Jhamman Lal on 26-2-1958 at about 2 p.m. There were four drums of sarson oil at the shop and also mungphali oil which was exposed for sale. He asked Jhamman Lal, respondent No. 1 to give; him a sample of mustard oil. But Jhamman, Lal instead of complying with the request, of the Food, Inspector left the shop and promised to come shortly. The Food Inspector waited for some time, but Jhamman Lal did not turn up. Tota Ram, who appears to have been also sitting on the shop was then asked by the Food Inspector to supply the sample. He said that sample could only be given by Jhamman Lal and that he was going to call Jhamman Lal. He also left the shop. The Food Inspector waited for an hour and a half, but neither Tota Ram nor Jhamman Lal came: back. The Food Inspector had gone with witnesses Bhola (P. W. 3), Ram Samp, Rafi Uddin (P. W. 2) and Mohammad Ismail (P. W. 4). He thereafter made a report against Jhamman Lal that Jhamman Lal prevented the Food Inspector from obtaining sample from him and Tota Ram had made the statement that the sample would be given by Jhamman Lal. So far as these facts are concerned, they have been proved by the prosecution witnesses. On behalf of Jhamman Lal defence had been produced to the effect that the Food Inspector had never gone to his shop to ask for a sample.

(3.) The trial Court believed the prosecution story and convicted both Jhamman Lal and Tota Ram under Section 7/16(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The accused filed an appeal and the Sessions Judge allowed the appeal on the ground that in order to prevent sample being taken there should have been some overt act. It was further held that it was open to the Food Inspector in the absence of Jhamman Lal to take a sample from the tin and therefore, it could not be said that the Food Inspector had been prevented from taking the sample. On these grounds the Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence against both the accused. The Municipal Board aggrieved by that decision filed this appeal in this Court.