SUKHDEO KRISHNA KADAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE admitted facts in this case are that on 25-12-1975 at about 10. 00 a. m. , the complainant Food Inspector with panch witness Bugade was present in Jayprakash Restaurant at Barsi The accused who is a retail vendor of milk brought milk with the intention to sell the same to the proprietor of the restaurant. Suspecting that the milk was adulterated, the Food Inspector demanded a sample of the milk from the accused. The accused kept the pot of milk in the hotel and told the Inspector that he would supply the sample as soon as the other articles which he had kept on his bicycle parked nearby, were also brought to the restaurant. Saying so, the accused left the restaurant and did not turn up thereafter. The Food Inspector waited for a long time for the accused to return. Thereafter, he realised that the accused had made good his escape and therefore decided to attach the milk pot. The Inspector then made the necessary panchanama and attached the pot containing the milk. However, he did not take any sample of the milk since he felt that he could not do so in the absence of the accused-vendor. However, thereafter, he filed a complaint against the accused for the offence under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) as it then stood, for preventing the Food Inspector from taking the sample as authorised by the said Act.

(2.) THE defence of the accused with which I am concerned in this application, was that by running away from the spot, he had not prevented the complainant Food Inspector from taking the sample as authorised by the said Act and therefore he was not guilty of the offence with which he was charged. The learned Magistrate held that on the proved facts of the case it was established that the accused had run away from the spot as alleged by the complainant and therefore had successfully prevented the Food Inspector from collecting the sample as authorised by the said Act. On this finding, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence under Section 16 (1) (b) of the said Act and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default to suffer R. I. for further two months. The appeal filed by the accused before the Sessions Judge, Sholapur. failed, the Appeal Court taking the same view as taken by the trial Court. It is, aggrieved by the order of the Appeal Court that this revision application is filed by the accused, challenging his conviction.

(3.) THE short question that falls for consideration in this revision application is whether the admitted act of the accused in running away from the spot leaving the milk there amounts to prevention from taking the sample as authorised by the said Act within the meaning of Section 16 (1) (b) i. e. the offence for which the accused was charged. It may at once be stated that it is not possible to give a narrow meaning to the word "preventing" used in the said section so as to hold that it is only an overt act of obstruction, assault or criminal intimidation which would amount to prevention as contemplated by the said provision. There is no doubt that for the purposes of the said section any act on the part of the accused which successfully prevents the Food Inspector from taking the sample would amount to such prevention. Such act may, for example, include an act of destruction of the food item or an act causing its disappearance by any other means or an act which will subject the article to loss of its nature or identity. In order therefore, to come within the mischief of the provisions of Section 16 (1) (b) of the said Act, the presence of physical force or of the threat of physical force against the Food Inspector is not always necessary. However, in all cases where the said provisions are invoked, it is necessary to show that the Food Inspector was disabled from taking the sample or that it was impossible for him to take such sample. If the prosecution fails to prove that, it is difficult to hold that the case would fall under the said provision. It is in the light of this proposition of law that I will have to find out whether the present case is covered by the said provision