C P SINGHAL FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. RAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KAMLESHWAR Nath, J. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The case need not detain us long because the point referred to the Full Bench is already covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajinder Prasad v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 Supreme Court Cases 452 : AIR 1983 Supreme Court 878. It has been held by the Supreme Court that the act of a person selling an article, whose sample is sought to be taken by the Food Inspector, by slipping away from the shop under some pretext falls with in the mischief of Section 16 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the person from whom sample was sought to be taken must be held to prevent the Food Inspector from taking the sample as authorised by the Act. The Supreme Court in para 11 of the report has held that the view expressed by this court in the cases of Municipal Board, Sambhal v. Jhammun Lal, AIR 1961 Allahabad 103, reiterated in Mamchand v. State, 1971 Criminal Law Journal 1772 is the correct view. The result is that the contrary view in the case of Municipal Board v. Maluk Das Gupta and another, 1971 Criminal Law Journal 705 and Chedi Lal and another v. Municipal Medical Officer of Health, Faizabad, 1980 Criminal Lal Journal 367 is erroneous.

(2.) WE may mention that on the question framed in the referring order of the learned Single Judge, the relevant provision of law should be Section 16 (1) (c) and not 16 (d) of the Act. Our answer to the question referred to the Full Bench therefore is as follows :- "if a milk seller, leaving beind his can of milk open or sealed, run away from the spot in order to avoid giving of sample, or a shop keeper runs away leaving his shop either open or locked with the object of avoiding giving of sample to the Food Inspector, such act amounts to preventing of Food Inspector from taking sample as authorised by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act so as to attract the provisions of Section 16 (1) (c) of the Act.