MOTI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against the judgments passed by the courts below convicting the applicant under sec. 16 read with sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500.

(2.) According to the prosecution when L.S. Tandon, Chief Sanitary Inspector, (P.W. 1) wanted to take sample of Amirti from the shop of the applicant for analysis on 25th Oct., 1969 at 7 a.m. the applicant prevented him from doing so.

(3.) It was pointed out that mere refusal to sell an article of food to the Food Inspector does not amount to an offence for which the applicant has been convicted. In the complaint there was no allegation that besides refusing to sell the sample there was any overt act on the part of the applicant which might have prevented the Inspector from taking the sample if he so wanted. Even in his examination-in-chief the Inspector did not make any statement that besides refusing to sell, the applicant had done anything else. P.W. 2, R.R. Singh, also did not say that any physical obstruction was created by the applicant. In the cross-examination of the Food Inspector there is a stray sentence that the applicant caught hold of his hand when he was trying to take the sample, it was argued that this obviously was introduced for the first time by the Food Inspector when he realised that no case was made out against the applicant. Moreover, this statement was not put to the applicant when he was examined in the trial court.